U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 4

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - May 22, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





May 22, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



VENEZUELA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



IRAQ/REGION



BURUNDI



NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA



IRAN/REGION



IRAQ



IRAN


TRANSCRIPT:

3:58 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Oh, thank you. I’m a little shorter than the Secretary, so pardon me here for my – for my little box. I have a couple announcements to make, and then I’d be happy to take your questions, although it’s certainly a hard act to follow when you have the Secretary of State.

Today I’d like to mention that our Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan is in Brazil. He’s meeting with his counterpart, the Deputy Foreign Minister Galvao, to launch the U.S.-Brazil Permanent Forum on Security. The forum is a result of cooperation between the United States and Brazil, and the Permanent Forum on Security. They are working there to fight transnational crime. They aim to foster continued teamwork, combat drug trafficking, arms trafficking, cyber-crime, money laundering, and also terrorism. Yesterday in Buenos Aires, the deputy secretary joined representatives from Argentina, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and Chile to condemn the fraudulent electoral process that culminated in sham elections in Venezuela on May the 20th. He echoed Secretary Pompeo’s vow that the United States will take swift economic and diplomatic actions and welcomed a strong statement from the Lima Group unequivocally calling out the illegitimate electoral process and responding to the national – the regional humanitarian crisis caused by the Maduro regime’s rampant corruption and also mismanagement.

I also want to note recent sanctions announcements that were made both on Friday and on Monday of this week. These sanctions reflect the continued commitment of the United States to use every appropriate diplomatic and economic tool to hold the corrupt Maduro regime accountable. The United States stands with the Venezuelan people in their efforts to restore democracy to their country.

In addition to that, I’d like to note our pleasure in announcing the announcement by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Alex Azar, at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, an additional $7 million, bringing the total U.S. assistance thus far to $8 million in the fight against Ebola in the Democratic Republic of Congo. As you know, there is an Ebola virus outbreak there right now. The $7 million in additional funding includes 5 million specifically authorized by Secretary Pompeo to address this crisis. One million of that money came from USAID. The funds will provide immediate resources to help combat the spread of this deadly disease. The U.S. Government is committed to global health security and commends the proactive efforts of the Congolese, and also our other international partners to control this outbreak.

And lastly, I’d like to draw your attention to Russia’s ongoing aggression in Ukraine. This has been one of the most violent weeks of the year. Five Ukrainian soldiers are now dead and 23 have been wounded. The fighting has not spared civilians either. A 13-year-old boy and his father were killed in a Ukrainian Government controlled territory when artillery shells struck their home. A pipe carrying chlorine gas at the Donetsk water filtration station was struck by artillery shells.

The Kremlin controls the violence in eastern Ukraine and could bring this violence to an end tomorrow if the Kremlin wanted to do that. Russia has claimed it wants to protect Russian speakers, but as our Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations, Kurt Volker has pointed out on numerous occasions, there’s nowhere in the world more dangerous for Russian speakers right now than in eastern Ukraine. Russian and Ukrainian soldiers and civilians continue to die in a conflict manufactured by the Russian Government with forces that arms, equips, leads, and trains. And while Russia perpetuates the violence in eastern Ukraine by pouring money, soldiers, and resources into the region, the Russian economy continues to stagnate. We call on Russia to end its aggression in Ukraine and live up to its commitments when it signed the Minsk agreements.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions. Do we start with you again?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: That seems a little unfair, but okay.

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go right ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: I don’t think so. Just before I go onto something else, quickly on Venezuela.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: I’m sorry I was spacing out a little bit there when you were reading your statement. Did you talk about the PNGs of the charge and the number two?

MS NAUERT: I did not, though.

QUESTION: I didn’t think so. It’s so late that I’m kind of --

MS NAUERT: I know. Well, wasn’t it worth it? Now you wonder why --

QUESTION: I suppose.

MS NAUERT: -- our briefing – why our briefing was late.

QUESTION: Anyway, so what can you tell us about the expulsions of these – your diplomats from Venezuela?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, look, I can just say we’ve seen the reports. This happened not that long ago. But we’ve seen the reports that the Maduro regime intends to declare our charge d’affaires Todd Robinson and our Deputy Chief of Mission Brian Naranjo persona non grata. I can say we completely reject the false allegations that have been made by the Maduro regime against our two colleagues. And I have nothing further beyond that, but we’ll let you know if we do get anything in addition to that.

QUESTION: Thanks. Can I move to Mideast for a --

MS NAUERT: Certainly.

QUESTION: The Palestinians today took the – took their brief or complaints against Israel to the International Criminal Court. And I am wondering: one, what you make of that move by the Palestinians; and secondly, if this is going to have any impact on the way the administration now approaches the Palestinians either legally or any other way.

MS NAUERT: Well, we have long believed that these types of actions are not conducive to peace. We are not a party to the International Criminal Court, as many of you know. We oppose the actions taking place against Israel at the International Criminal Court because we see that simply as counterproductive.

We have spoken about this many times before. Our position on this matter is well known. We oppose actions against Israel as – at the International Criminal – Criminal Court – pardon me – because it doesn’t help the cause for peace. And that is one of the priorities of this administration, getting the Israelis and Palestinians back to the table where they can have a good, concrete negotiation about the peace process going forward. And the ICC just doesn’t do that.

QUESTION: Okay. But the ICC was created – and I realize that the U.S. is not a member of it, but it was created to provide accountability. So is there anything that you think that Israel needs to be accountable for to the Palestinians?

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not going to get into that question. I think we have long talked about the situation going on in Gaza. We’ve long talked about the misery that the people face in Gaza is because of Hamas. We have seen and have watched as the previous clashes between the Israelis and Palestinians and those of Gaza have taken place. We’ve continued to call on Hamas to take better care of its people; it’s not taking care of its people. And I don’t have really much beyond that to give you right now.

QUESTION: Just on the Gaza thing.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: I want to ask you about Ambassador Friedman’s op-ed column. Is it the position of the administration, as it appears to be the position – the personal position of the ambassador, that the quote-unquote “liberal media” have blood on their hands for their coverage?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I can tell you I’m aware of the ambassador’s editorial. I don’t have anything to say about that. I could just refer you to Ambassador Friedman for any questions about that.

QUESTION: Well, does it reflect the administration’s view that there is --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything --

QUESTION: -- there is quote-unquote a “liberal media” that has blood on its hands?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything for you on that. I’d just have to refer you to the ambassador for anything (inaudible).

QUESTION: All right. Well, do you have anything on him posing for a photograph today that photoshopped out the al-Aqsa Mosque on the Temple Mount for a facsimile of what would be a third temple?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m not going to say much about this because this information just came to us as I was coming out to brief today. So until we have a full assessment of what actually happened, I’m going to be limited in terms of what I can say about this particular incident.

We have received a statement, however, I can share with you from Ambassador Friedman. He says he was not aware of the image that was put in front of him when the photo was taken. He was deeply disappointed that anyone would take advantage of his visit to Bnei Brak to create controversy. The U.S. policy is absolutely clear: We support the status quo at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount. I don’t have anything for you beyond that because, again, this was just – information was just coming out as I was coming out here.

QUESTION: Is that a statement in his name, or is that something that was put out by the embassy?

MS NAUERT: I have Friedman’s statement. I have Ambassador Friedman’s statement.

QUESTION: That’s a statement from him. So --

MS NAUERT: I believe so.

QUESTION: So – but does he apologize for it? I mean, this is something that is deeply --

MS NAUERT: Matt, that’s all I have. Look, again --

QUESTION: This is deeply offensive to more than 20 percent of the population. He’s laughing in the photograph.

MS NAUERT: He is saying that he was not aware of the image that was taken and that someone took advantage of him being at that location. I don’t have anything beyond that. I’d refer you over to our embassy to answer additional questions about that.

QUESTION: But on the op-ed --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Michelle.

QUESTION: Surely – thanks. Surely you’re able to say whether or not he’s speaking for the State Department or not, at least.

MS NAUERT: Look, I don’t have anything to say for you about this. I can just refer you to the ambassador at this point. Okay, all right.

QUESTION: Well, we just need to know: Who do this guy represent? Does he represent himself when he writes an opinion piece that says – that refers to his title?

MS NAUERT: Look, all I’m telling you, I don’t have anything for you on that. Okay?

QUESTION: Does he represent – does he represent the administration? Does he represent the State Department? Does he represent the President? I mean, he does do all of those things with the title “ambassador” on it. And if that’s just his personal opinion, then okay, whatever. But if that’s the position of the administration, then we need to know about it.

MS NAUERT: Matt, I would refer you to the ambassador’s office. Anything else? Shall we move on?

Okay. Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi.

QUESTION: A follow-up. One quick follow-up on the PLO. Will you take action to close the PLO office because they’ve now gone to the ICC?

MS NAUERT: I know that was an issue that was brought up before under our previous secretary. As far as I am aware, that is all under consideration – the status of the PLO office, I mean. And I’m not going to get ahead of any additional – potential steps or actions on the part of that office and any determination.

Okay. Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi. So yesterday, Secretary Pompeo said, and I quote here, “Iran must respect the sovereignty of the Iraqi Government and permit the disarming, demobilization, and reintegration of Shia militias.” That is an issue that you’ll be working on now? That’s the strongest statement any U.S. official has made about the problem. Is that an issue that you’ll be working on now with the Iraqi Government?

MS NAUERT: Sovereignty is something that’s in our National Security Strategy, the administration’s National Security Strategy, and that is respecting the sovereignty of another government and respecting the sovereignty of Iraq. You heard what the Secretary had to say about that yesterday. We respect Iraq’s sovereignty and we partner with the Iraqi Government. We have for very many years. We have a great relationship with the Government of Iraq. Their efforts to protect their sovereignty from malign forces both inside and outside its borders continue to stand and they are quite strong in that action.

QUESTION: And Muqtada al-Sadr, since he’s so anti-Iranian, would be a good partner for this?

MS NAUERT: I’m not saying that. We will work with whoever the Iraqi Government and the people of Iraq decide to elect into its government. We’ve had a long, good – longstanding, good relationship with the Government of Iraq and we will continue to have a good relationship with them.

QUESTION: And if I could ask you one more question?

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: The Iraqi electoral commission released the election results without dealing with the multiple complaints of fraud. Do you think that issue needs to be more seriously investigated?

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that is still under investigation, and that investigation or the look at the election process continues.

QUESTION: And you support that?

MS NAUERT: Well, we certainly continue to support the organization that’s going through and taking a look at the election results, including complaints that you mentioned, and as far as I know, that that process continues.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi.

QUESTION: Brett McGurk has been meeting with multiple parties in Iraqi Kurdistan and in Iraq. He met also with those parties that complained about the elections and the – can you share with us what is the meetings about? What is he talking to --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have the specifics about Brett’s meetings. What Mr. McGurk typically does is he meets with a range of parties from the north, including in Baghdad as well. I don’t have the specifics from those meetings, but I know that he’s engaged in a lot of conversations with the government.

QUESTION: And also at the same time, Qasem Soleimani is also meeting with a range of political parties, and so what is – are you doing anything or what is the U.S. doing to contain the Iranian influence on the formation of the next government in Iraq?

MS NAUERT: We have long said that we think that – not long said, but we have said since the election that we thought for – a coalition government would be formed. We’re not going to get ahead of that process. We will work with the government, whoever the people elect, whoever the people decide. In terms of whether or not he’s meeting with Muqtada al-Sadr, I just don’t have any information for you on that. Okay?

Let’s move on to something else.

QUESTION: Burundi?

MS NAUERT: Hi, there. Yes, go right ahead.

QUESTION: We saw a statement yesterday – thank you very much. Just wondering if you have more to add regarding the Burundi referendum, because the constitutional referendum could extend the president’s rule through 2034.

MS NAUERT: Let me see if I do. I do somewhere have something on that. And of course, we had watched the news come out of Burundi as they were stifling conversation and debate within the media, including your organization, Voice of America.

The May 17th referendum process in Burundi was marred by lack of transparency, the suspension of media outlets, including Voice of America and also your colleague here from the BBC as well, and also attempts to pressure voters. The government allowed vigorous campaigning by the opposition during a designated two-week period, but prior to that, we had heard about numerous cases of harassment and also repression of the referendum opponents in the months that preceded the vote and contributed to a climate of fear and also of repression, and that’s a serious concern of ours. The overall absence of independent observers also undermines confidence in the reported results.

I want to be clear about our condemnation of the government’s recent decision to suspend the Voice of America and also BBC broadcasts. The decision, along with other media restrictions, arbitrary arrests, harsh sentences for human rights defenders signals a continuing limitation on civil and political space in Burundi.

Lastly, I’d like to say we remain concerned about the passage of a revised constitution, that passage of the revised constitution will be interpreted as resetting the presidential term limits. We want to highlight that the ruling party made a commitment under the Pretoria Protocol with respect to the principles of the Arusha Agreement, including the respect for term limits.

Thank you. Okay. Let’s move on. Hi, Michelle.

QUESTION: On North Korea --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the major hesitation that we saw from the President today on that subject, how much of that would you say could be due to an early overselling of the situation on the part of South Korea? Or do you think that we’re way past that by now and that this is something else?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think the Secretary addressed a lot of these questions, so I am not going to step on what the Secretary just had to say about --

QUESTION: Oh, come on.

MS NAUERT: -- about our meetings potentially on June the 12th. Look, I think the South Koreans proposed to us some meetings that the government – Kim Jong-un of North Korea – was willing to undertake with the United States. I think the United States met this in a full, good-faith effort to try to have those conversations, but beyond that, I’m not just – I’m not going to step on what the Secretary just had to say, or the President, for that matter. I think they did a sufficient job of addressing that and I couldn’t – certainly couldn’t do any better.

Hi. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Going back to the bilateral for a moment, the President said that there are certain conditions that we want to happen in reference to the U.S.-North Korea summit. Can you offer any clarification on what those conditions are?

MS NAUERT: I think we’ve been very clear all along – and the Secretary alluded to this before – complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization. How many times have you heard me say that here? A lot. That’s our policy. Our policy has not changed and we stand there.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: So still on North Korea but not on the meeting per se. So the closure of the Punggye-ri site – we’ve talked about this before, but because – especially since they didn’t bring in expert, like, witnesses mostly; they just let in the press. So what is the U.S. position on that? Do you see that as a good sign for them moving to denuclearization?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, look, I’m going to be very careful about what I say on this entire topic, and I hope you will all understand that. I can only say we saw as reporters went there and covered what the Government of North Korea had said was happening, the dismantling of a nuclear site. We certainly welcome the announcement of plans to dismantle its nuclear test site. I’d go back to permanent, irreversible closure that can be inspected and fully accounted for. That is a key step in the denuclearization for North Korea, and we look forward to learning more about the details of that.

Okay.

QUESTION: Heather, can I just follow up on the --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- on the closure of the nuclear site. Did the U.S. request for any officials to be able to attend that closure?

MS NAUERT: I can only tell you that we have not had a – an invitation that was extended to us. My understanding is that the journalists were invited, and I just don’t have anything beyond that, okay?

All right.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Hi, sir. How are you?

QUESTION: Iran, please.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: A couple days ago, the ambassador – Russian ambassador in Syria urged all foreign forces to leave the country, including Iran and Hizballah, and a spokesperson in Tehran at the foreign ministry said no one can make Iran do anything against its will. How do you read that and were you surprised?

MS NAUERT: Well --

QUESTION: It looks like there is a tension between the --

MS NAUERT: Well, look, I think it’s particularly rich that Russia would say that other countries must leave Syria and that Russia wouldn’t choose to do so itself. So I’m pretty suspicious of countries that are there backing the government of Bashar al-Assad. We’ve had a lot – far too many conversations about the brutality and the nature of the regime of Bashar al-Assad. They continue to this day to be backed by Russia and also Iran. They continue to gas and kill their own people. The United States will continue to work to hold them responsible and hold those other regimes responsible, as we believe the world will increasingly step in and try to do so as well.

QUESTION: But to mention Iran by name didn’t – it didn’t surprise you? Did it surprise you or --

MS NAUERT: That --

QUESTION: To mention Iran by name.

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to comment on anything beyond what the Russians may say about the United States or other countries. What they have to say about Iran – they can say whatever they like, okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi. Yeah.

QUESTION: From the Secretary’s remarks yesterday and today, there’s – particularly yesterday, obviously, there was some speculation that essentially what he wants is – the U.S. wants is regime change in Iran. Do you --

MS NAUERT: That is not our policy.

QUESTION: But does the United States believe that it can work with this – the Government of Iran to achieve its objectives --

MS NAUERT: I think the Secretary was very clear in his speech yesterday about our government’s concerns – and other governments share these very rational concerns – about the activities of the Iranian regime. For far too long, administrations have simply looked at Iran through the lens of the JPCOA, through the nuclear agreement. This administration is choosing to focus on not only keeping Americans safe, keeping our allies and partners safe, and frankly, keeping the world safe.

QUESTION: But his answer today wasn’t, “We think these sanctions will work even if it takes a long time,” it was once again calling on the Iranian people themselves to do something about that. So if he’s not advocating regime change, why does he keep making it sound exactly like he’s advocating regime change?

MS NAUERT: I think what he’s saying is this is up to the Iranian people. The Iranian people for far too long have lived under a regime that has mistreated its people. We’ve seen the human rights abuses, we’ve seen the clampdown on the media, we’ve seen the clampdown on freedom of expression. That continues to happen each and every day. People are imprisoned; we don’t always know where they are, including Americans who are being held there as well. So I think the Secretary was very clear about concerns that the Iranian people have themselves – the Persian people, a very proud people. And we’ve seen a certain level of frustration and anger at their own government for promises that the government has not fulfilled. That government, back when the JCPOA was put into effect said, effectively, “We will share this money with you. You will see the fruits of this.” The people have not seen that. Those promises were not fulfilled, and so we see an increasing level of frustration by their own people. Our policy --

QUESTION: So what does he want them to do?

MS NAUERT: Our policy is not regime change; but if the Iranian people were to choose somewhere down the road to make their views known, they’re certainly welcome to do so. But that is not our policy.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: I mean, on your previous comment about Iraq, you’ve said essentially that the U.S. is willing to work with whichever government the people of Iraq elect.

MS NAUERT: I think it’s up to the Government of Iran how they want to behave. We certainly haven’t seen them behave as a responsible international partner for very many years. There’s no one who knows that better than my colleagues here at the State Department when we look back at what happened to our colleagues and our embassy so many years ago. We’ve seen that as Iran has had such a destabilizing influence in the region.

The Secretary was recently in Saudi Arabia, where we had conversations with our Saudi Arabian partners about the missiles that had been launched on Riyadh. I’d go back to you and say this: Imagine that happening at any other country around the world, where the Iranian regime is launching missiles at an airport, a commercial airport. You could hit civilians, you could hit Americans, could cause a great deal of damage. The world should not tolerate that from Iran. The would certainly wouldn’t tolerate it from other countries.

QUESTION: A couple things.

MS NAUERT: And we’re going to have to wrap. We’re going to have to wrap in just a minute.

QUESTION: It’s not actually Iran that’s – are you saying that Iran is firing these missiles?

MS NAUERT: Iran is backing the Houthi rebels, and we’ve been very clear about that. This is not the first time we’ve had that conversation.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Also, when you say for far too long the Iranian people have lived under this – these abuses that you talked about --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- you’re referring back to ’79, to the Iranian Revolution?

MS NAUERT: This has happened for a very long time. This is nothing new, Matt. I don’t think you should be surprised by this.

QUESTION: No, I just want to know: Are you drawing a distinction between the human rights paradise that Iran was under the shah?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I am simply saying that people there have experienced repression. They know that repression very well. Okay.

QUESTION: And then last one on Saudi, because you just mentioned it --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: I just want to – you can go back to Iran. I just need to get a – I just need to get your reaction to the arrests of these women’s rights activists. There seem to be more today.

MS NAUERT: Are there reports of – of that?

QUESTION: It might have been yesterday. I think it’s up to 10 now, if I’m not mistaken.

MS NAUERT: I don’t have the number. I can just tell you Saudi Arabia, as I just mentioned, was a country we recently visited. We remain supportive of their overall reform agenda. I think that’s an important step in the right direction. A lot of people here and around the world were pleased and very happy to have heard their decision about women being able to drive on their own, attending movie theaters, and things of this sort. I can tell you that we are watching this carefully. We are concerned about the announced detention of activists in Saudi Arabia. We support space for civil society and also free speech, but overall, we’re concerned about it and we are keeping a close eye on it.

Okay, last question.

QUESTION: On Iran, the Secretary of State yesterday and today talked about assassinations in the heart of Europe being carried out today by the Quds Force. Are there any details about that? We looked and couldn’t find anything.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m surprised you didn’t ask the Secretary about that himself.

QUESTION: I was rather late. I apologize.

MS NAUERT: He has information and access to information that I do not. I’m not able to comment on that in particular, but I can tell you that the Secretary has assured me that there is a basis for that point in his speech and he stands firmly behind that. Okay.

QUESTION: So it’s sort of classified intelligence information he’s saying there.

MS NAUERT: I won’t comment beyond that, but I can tell you that the Secretary has assured us of that.

Okay, guys, we have to wrap it there. Thank you so much.

(The briefing was concluded at 4:23 p.m.)

DPB # 29

 

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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - May 17, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





May 17, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

UZBEKISTAN



VENEZUELA



DEPUTY SECRETARY SULLIVAN TRAVEL



DEPARTMENT



LGBTI



NORTH KOREA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



IRAQ



TURKEY



IRAQ



TURKEY



IRAN



INDIA



PAKISTAN



IRAN


TRANSCRIPT:

3:24 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi, everybody. How are you today?

QUESTION: Freezing.

MS NAUERT: It is cold. It’ll keep you awake. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Put on a sweater, as Jimmy Carter would say. (Laughter.) Good afternoon, everyone. Hope you’re well. I do actually remember the warmer days in here when people – I won’t name any names – would fall asleep because it was so warm in here, so we try to keep you awake.

All right. Good afternoon. A couple of announcements I’d first like to make.

QUESTION: Are you talking about Matt?

QUESTION: It was not me.

MS NAUERT: It was definitely not Matt. It was not Matt. (Laughter.)

I’d like to start with this, and that is the Secretary welcomed the president of Uzbekistan earlier today here at the State Department. This is President Mirziyoyev’s first trip to Washington and will raise the strategic partnership between the United States and Uzbekistan to a new level. We applaud the president’s ambitious reform program to improve the human rights situation in his country. These efforts have created the conditions for increased economic, political, and security cooperation between our nations. We recognize that Uzbekistan has an important role in making Central Asia a stable and prosperous region through initiatives like the C5+1 framework and in supporting international efforts to stabilize Afghanistan.

As part of the visit, Ambassador Alice Wells, the senior bureau official for South and Central Asian Affairs, signed agreements to promote U.S.-Uzbekistan cooperation in the field of education. Agreements were also signed with other U.S. Government agencies to intensify cooperation on energy, agriculture, law enforcement, two-way trade, and also investment.

Next, I’d like to address a very concerning situation following a riot that took place at a prison in Venezuela just yesterday. It is called the Helicoide prison – it’s in Venezuela – and that is where U.S. citizens, including U.S. citizen Joshua Holt from Utah, are being held right now. You may have seen Joshua Holt’s Facebook videos and the tweets issued last night by our U.S. Embassy in Caracas. We continue to have serious concerns about the safety and welfare of U.S. citizens who are being held there. The Venezuelan Government is responsible for the safety of all detainees in its prison system, including U.S. citizens in detention. We hold the government responsible for their safety and well-being.

We observed Mr. Holt through his video and he has confirmed that he is still safe. Last night, our chief of mission in Caracas, Todd Robinson, went in person to the ministry of foreign affairs and made repeated requests to the highest levels of the Venezuelan Government for information about the situation at that prison. Venezuelan authorities refused to meet with our chief of mission at that time. Prior to yesterday’s events, our Acting Assistant Secretary Palmieri called in the Venezuelan charge once again to ask for the release of Mr. Holt on humanitarian grounds.

The U.S. embassy and the Department of State continue to press the Venezuelan authorities for their assurances of the safety of U.S. citizens who are detained in Venezuela.

Lastly – pardon me – I would like to mention our deputy secretary will travel to Buenos Aires, Argentina for the G20 foreign ministers meeting. I believe he leaves on Saturday. At the G20 meeting, Deputy Secretary Sullivan will address global economic, political, and security issues, including sustainable development. The conversations will set the stage for the G20 Leaders Summit that will take place in Argentina this November.

On the margins of the G20 ministerial, Deputy Secretary Sullivan will meet with foreign ministers for bilateral discussions including the Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Faurie. Following the G20, Deputy Secretary Sullivan will travel to Brasilia, Brazil, and that’s where he’ll meet with the Deputy Foreign Minister Galvao and launch the U.S.-Brazil security forum. That’s a bilateral law enforcement initiative that will address transnational crime.

While in Brasilia, the deputy secretary will discuss our joint economic growth agenda and global and regional issue, including the crisis in Venezuela. The deputy secretary will also meet with Embassy Brazil staff and members of Brazilian civil society.

With that, I’d be happy to take your questions, but not before recognizing some of our colleagues in the back. We have some information officers, some press officers, who are just getting ready to head out to their posts. I have a list of where you all are going. It’s an impressive array, so congratulations to all of you. And they’ve ranged from going to places from Afghanistan to – let’s see, where else? I remember that one. Afghanistan – come on, somebody say something. Don’t be shy. Where else are you going?

QUESTION: Guatemala.

MS NAUERT: Guatemala, okay. Where else?

QUESTION: The Vatican.

MS NAUERT: Vatican. Oh, that’s a tough one. (Laughter.) Okay, nice. Rome. Sir, where are you going?

QUESTION: Beijing.

MS NAUERT: Beijing, all right. Well, thank you so much for your service. Godspeed and good luck to you out there. Let us know if you need anything.

Matt, go right ahead.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Thanks, Heather. Before moving on to North Korea, and I’m sure the Middle East, I just want to ask you one brief one about the statement that the Secretary – was released in the Secretary’s name this morning --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- about the LGBTI discrimination, anti-discrimination day, basically. It says in there, “The United States firmly opposes criminalization, violence, and serious acts of discrimination such as in housing, employment, and government services, directed against LGBTI persons.” And I’m just wondering how it is that you guys can say this – or say it and expect to be taken seriously – when this administration’s stated policy is to discriminate against transgender people by not allowing them to serve in the military.

MS NAUERT: Matt, let me first start out by saying the Secretary released a statement earlier today. This is a matter that’s important to the State Department. Promoting, protecting, and advancing human rights, including the rights of LGBTI persons, has long been and continues to remain the policy of the United States Government. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and in rights.”

In terms of what you’re addressing with regard to the Department of Defense and its policies, it’s a matter that’s being handled in multiple courts right now. I’m not going to get ahead of the court process, but DOD will continue to comply with the court rules.

QUESTION: But I --

MS NAUERT: And I don’t speak for the department of Defense --

QUESTION: I know.

MS NAUERT: -- but that’s all I have for you there.

QUESTION: I get that. But I mean, it’s – but that’s what the policy is. Whether or not the courts rule on it or not, the President has tweeted that that is his policy. And on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, Biphobia for the United States – I don’t understand how it’s consistent for the U.S. to stand with LGBTI people when the stated policy is to discriminate against it, at least one section of it.

MS NAUERT: Matt, again, that’s before the courts. I’m not going to address that. That is a Department of Defense issue. One of the things that we stand for here at the State Department proudly – and we continue to do so – is the respect for human rights. And that includes the right to love anyone you want, to spend time with anyone that you choose, and we stand firmly behind that and that hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: Okay. Very briefly on North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: The President, in remarks made just a few minutes ago with the NATO secretary general, seemed to confuse or conflate the quote-unquote “Libya model,” which, as the national security advisor referred to and as has been generally understood I think everywhere in this town except for one person maybe, that model is the ’03 – the Bush administration’s ’03, ’04 pact with the Libyans that saw them get rid of all of their weapons of mass destruction, and not the next administration, the Obama administration’s, military intervention in 2011 that – so I just want to make sure. The State Department understands the difference between these two things, correct?

MS NAUERT: In terms of what the President said in his remarks, I would just have to refer you to the White House. I have not had a chance to speak with the White House since the President spoke. We’ve been really busy here today. In terms of using any sort of so-called Libyan model, our model is to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and we stand firmly behind that, and that hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: Okay. But there is still enough institutional knowledge left in this building, right, that understands what the ’03, ’04 Libya deal was?

MS NAUERT: I can tell you that we have Libya desk experts and we have people here staffed up in the building who are experts --

QUESTION: Okay. All right. Okay. So if there is --

MS NAUERT: -- on the entire history, but I don’t want to get into a history lesson here with all of you.

QUESTION: Fair enough. I’m not going to ask you for the details of the history. But I just want to make sure, even if people up the street on Pennsylvania Avenue don’t understand the difference, the people who work for the department does.

MS NAUERT: Matt, I’m not going to go there. I’d refer you to the White House if you have any specific questions about his comments. Okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Hi, Lesley.

QUESTION: Hello. Given that the Secretary has been the contact with Pyongyang, has he personally reached out to anyone in North Korea regarding the summit?

MS NAUERT: I will go back to what the President said, and what the President said earlier today is that we’re making arrangements for the meeting. The Secretary has said to me – and I spent time with him this morning having this conversation about this very issue. Chairman Kim had asked for a meeting with the President of the United States. He addressed this with our Secretary. We are continuing to push ahead and plan in our preparations. Those continue at this time for a meeting between the President and Kim Jong-un in June.

QUESTION: But he has not been in touch with him?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into all of the details. I can tell you we’ve been closely coordinating with our allies. We provided – or at least confirmed our call with the Republic of Korea, just yesterday I believe it was. And we continue with our – excuse me – we continue with our preparations for that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Uh-huh. Yeah. Hey, Rich.

QUESTION: On North Korea, Acting Assistant Secretary Susan Thornton discussed the idea of a big down payment at a Wall Street Journal conference in Tokyo. To that, Senator Marco Rubio said that this is the reason he would prevent her confirmation, because that position undermines the President and is essentially a gradual back-and-forth – North Korea does something, the United States rewards it. Is the State Department seriously considering that or what is --

MS NAUERT: I think, first, what I would encourage everyone to do – and our Acting Assistant Secretary Susan Thornton was speaking through a Wall Street Journal panel in Tokyo. I would encourage all of you to go back and read our comments. If you have not seen them yourselves, we can certainly provide them to you. The headline in that Wall Street Journal article – and we’ve reached out to the Wall Street Journal about this – is, frankly, inaccurate and overblown. What Susan Thornton was talking about is very similar and the same thing to what Secretary Pompeo spoke about, and that is that we would like to see a bigger, bolder, different, faster deal than the kind of deals that have been proposed before.

Susan said – and I’ll read part of her quote for you, because it was a lengthy panel in which she provided information on – she said, “There is an expectation that he’s already committed to complete denuclearization.” She’s referring to Kim Jong-un there. “And in his conversations with the South Koreans that there will be a big down payment, a big, upfront demonstration of his intention to do that, not just words and statements but also actions.” Our policy remains the same. It’s complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. What she said is completely in line with what Secretary Pompeo has said.

QUESTION: Are you going to have this gradual back-and-forth that the Secretary is (inaudible) about?

MS NAUERT: No. And you all can appreciate this. Headline writers sometimes take your pieces and they kind of change those pieces and they go their own direction with things. So we’ll be in contact with them to have some conversations about that.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that --

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: -- two questions. One is the tweet from Marco Rubio suggested that Susan Thornton was somehow undermining the President with her statements there.

MS NAUERT: Not at all. Not at all. Look, Susan Thornton has – and continues to be a very valued, hardworking member of our diplomatic community. Susan Thornton has had the opportunity to meet with the President. They spent time together. I think it was in Beijing, quite a few months ago, when they were traveling. Susan Thornton had been nominated for her position by the White House. Susan Thornton has a great deal of respect among people here in the building. She has professionally – just as our other Foreign Service officers in the building – pushed forward the agenda of this administration.

One of the things that has impressed me the most about our Foreign Service officers here is whether or not they like the policy – and I’m not speaking to Susan; I’m speaking in general terms – whether or not they like the policy, they push it out. They’re professional. They do their jobs, and they’re patriots. So Susan has continued to work hard on behalf of this administration, the American people, and the State Department.

QUESTION: And just one follow-up on this.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Or slightly different, but also North Korea. The Secretary’s comments over the weekend about U.S. offering the full weight of trade and investment in North Korea were met in the North Korean statements – essentially they said they don’t want U.S. investment. Was he surprised by that? Has that changed his thinking or tactics or --

MS NAUERT: I think one of the things that the Secretary had addressed with Chairman Kim is the idea that North Koreans could have a brighter future, and by a brighter future that means economic investment. That does not mean – some news organizations misreported this – that does mean U.S. tax dollars going to support the regime of Kim Jong-un, not at all. That means if they denuclearize we could see – we could envision a future for North Korea where there’s private investment, where private money goes into North Korea, whether it’s building hotels or cinemas or whatever. That could be a future that North Korea could have, if they choose to denuclearize. And I think that’s an exciting opportunity. I think it’s something that – I can’t speak for the North Korean Government, but I think that’s something that was certainly at least somewhat appealing to them. Who doesn’t want a brighter future for their own people?

Hi, Barbara. Yeah.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on the Libya model, which the essence of it is to remove the nuclear program from top to bottom and then there’s compensation, which I believe is what Mr. Bolton was talking about – that falls along the lines of what Secretary Pompeo has been saying as well, right?

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not going to get ahead of what the President and what Secretary Pompeo and all of our colleagues throughout the interagency are planning to discuss with the North Korean Government. Those meetings will all take place. We’re having meetings in the meantime where we talk and discuss how meetings in June will be structured and how those conversations will go, but as far as those plans are, we are not ready to reveal those at – right at this point.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: The President also said that if there’s a deal, Kim Jong-un can have very strong protections. Can you give more details --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m not going to get into the --

QUESTION: -- or is part of a peace treaty or --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into the security situation there. But as you would imagine – I think we talked about this just two days ago, that governments have concerns, especially countries like that, that something could happen to their leader. That is it. I will leave it at that, that of course countries are certainly going to be concerned about such things. But I’m not going to get into details of that.

Hi, Janne.

QUESTION: Hi. Thank you, Heather. But it seems North Korea does not want to open Western styles, so why they going offer the United States – offer economically, provide all kind of investment or make a (inaudible)?

MS NAUERT: You’re asking what the motivation would be --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: -- for the private sector to invest in North Korea someday?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Well, I think it’s like any country, right? Any country wants to have or perhaps would want to have that kind of private investment so they can grow their economy. There’s a lot of work that needs to be done in North Korea. Electricity is not readily available throughout large parts of that country. That’s one potential opportunity. I’m sure there are very many U.S. corporations that would certainly welcome being involved in helping to bolster its infrastructure, whether it’s electricity, roads, or whatever. So that’s the incentive for the private sector.

Again, U.S. taxpayers would not be financing this. We’re a long way off from that point, of course, because the country hasn’t denuclearized, but the point is we’re just talking about what could be a brighter future for that country and for its people.

QUESTION: But Kim Jong-un concerned about if --

QUESTION: There’s a big market for Gap and McDonald’s, I think.

QUESTION: Yeah, McDonald’s go there.

QUESTION: You sure the North Koreans want that?

QUESTION: But if Kim Jong-un is concerned about even open their country, their people is the freedom to saying or freedom to watch WIFIs or whatever they use in electricity. He’s concern about human right issues in North Korea, so the best (inaudible).

MS NAUERT: Certainly, and human rights issues is something that we bring up very often with governments all around the world. We talked here just a few weeks ago about our Human Rights Report, in which we were very clear about our concerns, our very real concerns, about human rights issues in North Korea. Not that long ago, the President hosted a group of North Korean defectors who spoke about their experiences and why they chose to leave the country. They’ve spent time here at the State Department as well. I don’t have much more for you on it, other than to say that that is an issue that we continue to raise with many countries around the world.

QUESTION: Can I change the topic very quick?

QUESTION: Hold on, hold on. Something on the Susan Thornton – your explanation. You said that she talked about how this deal – the administration wants this deal to be bigger, bolder – did I hear this right? – bigger, bolder, faster, stronger? Is that like the motto here? Because I don’t – because that sounds like the intro --

MS NAUERT: No, she did not. She did not use those words, no.

QUESTION: That sounds like the intro to The Six Million Dollar Man, but --

MS NAUERT: You’re dating yourself, Matt.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: No, Susan --

QUESTION: But what did she say?

MS NAUERT: Susan did not use those words.

QUESTION: What did she say? Bigger, bolder --

MS NAUERT: No.

QUESTION: You --

MS NAUERT: Let me find it, hold on.

QUESTION: Well, maybe it wasn’t – maybe it wasn’t her.

MS NAUERT: She said, “There is an expectation, as he’s already committed to complete denuclearization, and in his conversations with the South Koreans, that there will be a big down payment, a big up-front demonstration of his intention to do that – not just words and statements, but also actions.” That’s what she said. I said that that is in line with the Secretary and what he had said over the weekend when he talked about how this program – we’re hoping that this deal would be bigger and different and faster.

QUESTION: Different and faster, okay. Sorry.

MS NAUERT: I can find the exact quote for you.

QUESTION: Could I move on?

QUESTION: Heather.

QUESTION: Heather, could I move on to Human Rights Watch, please?

MS NAUERT: Okay, certainly. Okay, yes.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Hold on, hold on. One more on this before – I’ll come over to you next, I promise.

Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you. The President also said that the model of “decimating,” quote, Libya would be the model if we don’t make a deal with North Korea. Is that the choice that the U.S. is giving North Korea, either come to the summit or be so-called decimated?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into the details of that. I’d just refer you back to the White House for anything more on that.

Okay, hi.

QUESTION: And then also on that, the President suggested that Kim Jong-un perhaps no longer wants to have a summit because he spoke with China. Previously you have said that China has been helpful. What is your assessment now? Has China been helpful, or would you like for them to do something differently?

MS NAUERT: We have always said – and we’ve been consistent about this – that China can always do more. China, as the key trading partner with North Korea, has an incredible amount of leverage with the North Korean Government. And so we continue to say to China that you can certainly do more, and I’ll leave it at that. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more on --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Said. No, we’ve got to – let’s move on.

QUESTION: Yeah. I have a quick question on the Israelis last week expelled or ordered – issued an order to expelling the head of the Human Rights Watch in Jerusalem and the West Bank, Omar Shakir. He’s an American citizen. They gave him 14 days to leave. I wonder if you are raising this with the Israeli Government and how would you view this. This guy is doing his job.

MS NAUERT: Said, I can just tell you we’re certainly aware of the report. I’d have to refer you to the Government of Israel for any questions about that. I’m not aware if we’re having any conversations with the Government of Israel about his case.

QUESTION: Yeah, but would you call on the Israelis to allow him to do his work?

MS NAUERT: Look, I don’t have the specifics of that case or the situation, so I’m not in the position to call on any government to do anything on that.

QUESTION: Okay. Because this comes in after – the week before the Israelis disallowed the two – a Columbia law professor and a constitutional center official from entering the country. They were there held for 14 hours and then they were deported. So this – there is a pattern right there. Are you concerned that American citizens who might be speaking about Israeli abuses of human rights are being sort of intimidated or not allowed in because of their views?

MS NAUERT: Said, I don’t have any information on that, and I’m not going to accept that premise. I don’t have any information on that. Countries certainly have a right to allow in individuals that they choose to allow in. The United States does. Every country around the world as sovereign nations have the ability to make some of those decisions, and I’m saying that in general terms. I don’t have any specific information on his particular case.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) at least on --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) criticize all kinds of human rights situations around the world.

MS NAUERT: What, Matt? What, Matt?

QUESTION: I’m just wondering, are you looking in at least to the – asking the Israelis about the case of the Human Rights Watch guy?

MS NAUERT: I think I just answered that. I’m not aware if we are or not.

QUESTION: Well, can you find out? Because I mean, when --

MS NAUERT: I will – I will certainly look into it.

QUESTION: As you are – you are correct that every country has the right to allow in who it wants to, but if an American citizen is unjustly deported or prevented from going into a country, it is certainly within the remit of this building to inquire and – as to the details and to complain, sometimes even loudly, if they see --

MS NAUERT: I will certainly see if I can find something for you on it.

Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi. There have been major complaints about fraud in the Iraqi voting, and the UN Mission there has called on Iraq’s Electoral Commission to investigate them, quote, “immediately and fully.” What is your position on this?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So we spoke about this a little bit the other day. The vote tally is still underway at this time. We’re certainly aware that there have been some challenges with that. We agree with the UN special representative who – the individual has called on the Independent High Electoral Commission to immediately and fully investigate those complaints, the complaints that you’re referring to, concerning the overall electoral process in Iraq. We call for the release of final election results just as quickly as possible and just as quickly as they’re ready. We understand the concerns that some people have had about that, and that’s why we call on them to quickly do this and resolve it.

QUESTION: Okay, and a question on Turkey. The foreign minister has said that there was a preliminary agreement about Manbij that was reached under Secretary Tillerson. At that time, you said that there was no such agreement. Is it still your position that there’s no agreement between the U.S. and Turkey on Manbij?

MS NAUERT: That’s correct. The talks about Manbij are ongoing, and nothing has been concluded. This is something that we addressed at NATO when the Secretary had met with his counterpart in Brussels as well, and so we just don’t have any new updates for you on that.

QUESTION: On Iraq --

MS NAUERT: And I will also point out that we do have a new Secretary, and so he has the ability to have conversations with the Government of Turkey, and then they can decide a new way forward if they should want to.

QUESTION: Sorry, Heather, a quick question on the election in Iraq because --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed in the level of turnout because it was very low? I mean, I worked back during the civil war and the turnout was much, much bigger. Are you disappointed? Do you think that people have lost faith in the democratic process in Iraq?

MS NAUERT: I don’t see it as that at all. We have seen from time to time when we’ve had higher or lower election turnouts in the United States, and many other countries have experienced that as well. But what is significant here is that the Iraqis held this successful election. The election went off with very, very limited violence. That is a tremendous success. And if we just wind back the clock to where Iraq was just a few years ago, when ISIS had controlled large swaths of that country, and now here people are turning out to vote and the biggest complaint we can find is a low turnout? Well, I’d say congratulations to the Iraqi people for pulling off a successful election.

Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you. Back to Turkey, please?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: As you know, Turkey has recalled its ambassadors to – from the U.S. and Israel. Can you give us an update? Is this straining U.S.-Turkish relations? And also on Pastor Andrew Brunson, please.

MS NAUERT: Sure. So first, in terms of Pastor Brunson, his case is one that we watch very carefully, very closely, not just here at the State Department. I know the Vice President has been keeping a close eye on it. Our colleagues at the State Department have been able to spend time in the courtroom with Pastor Brunson and having conversations with his family. This is also something that the President has watched very closely and carefully. It’s something that this administration continues to bring up in its bilateral meetings with the Government of Turkey, and at the next opportunity, I would not be surprised that this comes up yet once again. Congress is also following this very carefully and very closely. I don’t have an update for you on his case. I can check with some of our experts who are following this on a day-to-day basis and see if I can find anything more out for you on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: India?

MS NAUERT: And then you had a second question? Sorry.

QUESTION: Yeah, about the reaction to the embassy move and Turkey recalling its ambassador.

MS NAUERT: Look, we’re aware that Turkey has recalled its ambassador. That is within Turkey’s right to do so. And I don’t see that as diminishing our relationship with the Government of Turkey. We – they continue to be an important NATO ally. That is being maintained and we look forward to our next conversations with the government.

Okay.

QUESTION: On India?

QUESTION: On Iran?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. So we are now just seeing those big companies in Europe who are just pulling their business out of Iran, and the European countries, they are just about to protest their companies. So I’m just wondering, how is your negotiation with the European countries, or do you just consider some exemptions for the European companies for their business in Iran?

MS NAUERT: Well, first, I can tell you that companies have time to wind down their activities, and that in part gives them the ability to decide what business decisions that they want to make. This administration has been very clear since day one its concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activities, whether it is ballistic missile tests, terrorism around the globe, supporting the Houthi rebels in Yemen, firing off rockets and missiles into our strategic partner’s territory in Saudi Arabia, to all that they’re doing in Syria to bolster and prop up the regime of Bashar al-Assad, also doing things in Israel as well.

So Iran has a very well-documented litany of bad behaviors that it’s continued to be involved with. This administration has been clear about that. We’ve explained that to our European partners and others around the world.

Earlier this week, we hosted about 200 ambassadors here at the State Department, where many of our assistant secretaries or at least several of our assistant secretaries had a chance to talk with them about our real and serious and grave concerns about Iran’s destabilizing activity. That’s one thing that we’ve been doing. The Secretary has been having phone calls with his counterparts from the E3 expressing our concerns. These concerns are not a surprise to those countries, but the Secretary continues to talk with them about those concerns, but also the way forward. And that’s why we are happy and thrilled that the Secretary’s first foreign policy address will be about that very thing, about Iran and the way forward.

The United States will be working hard to put together a coalition not unlike the D-ISIS coalition, where we bring together a lot of countries from around the world with the specific goal of looking at the Iranian regime through a more realistic lens – not just through the lens of the nuclear deal, but rather through all of its destabilizing activities that aren’t just a threat to the region, but are a threat to the broader world.

QUESTION: So it means that there won’t be any exemptions for the European companies --

MS NAUERT: I’m not --

QUESTION: -- or their businesses, with Iran?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into all of the details of that. The Secretary will provide his speech. Also I can tell you Treasury and other agencies are involved as well, and they may have some decision making in all of that. Okay?

QUESTION: India?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Sir, why don’t – what do you have on India today?

QUESTION: Two quick questions, please.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I’ll see if I can answer them.

QUESTION: One will be on India. Two-plus-two was postponed because we didn’t have the Secretary of State. Now we have the new Secretary of State, congratulations, so when are we going to have this now two-plus-two because Secretary of Defense is ready?

MS NAUERT: Ah, yes, okay. You’re – the Indian secretary of defense is ready, you’re saying?

QUESTION: No --

MS NAUERT: Our secretary, okay.

QUESTION: -- yeah – two-plus-two, right, yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I don’t have any information for you on that. Obviously, we have a very strong relationship with Prime Minister Modi’s government. We have strong, strong people-to-people ties with the Indian population, and so I know when we get a chance to schedule something on that – I know we’re looking at the Secretary’s schedule right now to see what he has on his plate and what we’re going to schedule in the near future – I’ll let you know. Okay?

QUESTION: And second, madam, one strange thing is going on on Pakistani television is that former prime minister of Pakistan, Mr. Nawaz Sharif, he told the Pakistani television and – that Pakistan was behind the Mumbai attacks in India. Now, this also asserted that last year, General Musharraf said that Pakistan is favoring terrorism against India.

MS NAUERT: Say the last part again.

QUESTION: General Musharraf also said last year that Pakistan is supporting terrorism against India as far as Kashmir is concerned, and we are making it public that we will be supporting terrorism against India.

MS NAUERT: So --

QUESTION: And now it’s the prime minister of Pakistan who just stepped down.

MS NAUERT: Look, the only thing I can – I have to share with you about that in terms of the Mumbai attacks, and we’ve been – we’ve addressed this on numerous occasions from this podium here, and those would be our concerns about the mastermind behind the 2008 Mumbai attacks. And he’s a Lashkar-e-Tayyiba guy who was being held in Pakistan, and he was eventually let out on house arrest, and we have a reward out for – I believe it’s for his arrest – not information leading to his arrest, but his arrest. I don’t recall off the top of my head the award amount, but that person out in the open is a tremendous concern to the United States. In terms of your other question, I’d just have to look into that for you. Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you, madam.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Just back to – just back to the Secretary’s speech on Monday --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and this new anti-Iran coalition that you’re --

MS NAUERT: No, I – let me correct you on that. It’s not an anti-Iran coalition.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: We stand firmly behind the people of Iran and make a very significant distinction between the Iranian population – a very proud, historic population; a rich, incredible society – to what the Iranian regime is doing to its country. And when Iran pledged that it would bring some of its money back home – because they’ve done quite well for themselves as a result of the JCPOA and businesses, as she mentioned earlier, coming into the Iranian marketplace – they’ve done very little to share that money with their people and the overall economy, and people are frustrated with that, and they have a right to be angry with that. So this isn’t an anti-Iran thing, this is the Iranian regime and the bad actions that it’s doing, nothing with the Iranian people.

QUESTION: Okay. I wasn’t intending to mean that it was about the Iranian --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Whatever you’re going to – what are you going to call the coalition, then?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know, Matt. Do you have any suggestions?

QUESTION: The anti-Iranian regime – I don’t know, whatever it’s being called, whatever it’s going to be called.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay, I get your point.

QUESTION: Even if it – I don’t know if it’s even going to have a name. Well, whatever. Do you – has --

MS NAUERT: Maybe a government acronym.

QUESTION: Has – yeah, (inaudible) --

MS NAUERT: I’m sure it will be fabulous.

QUESTION: Maybe it could be called IRAN, I-R-A-N. You can figure out when it comes up – anyway, is there – been any interest in countries other than Israel and Saudi Arabia, the other gulf Arab states, in joining your coalition?

MS NAUERT: I can just tell you that in the Secretary’s calls that he’s had with his counterparts, they are fully understanding and appreciative of our concerns about Iran’s malign activity. These are countries that understand that. They’re not turning a blind eye to these things, and we continue to coordinate very closely with them.

QUESTION: Are you talking about the Europeans here?

MS NAUERT: Many countries, many countries, as we --

QUESTION: Has he spoken to Foreign Minister Lavrov at all since --

MS NAUERT: Not to my awareness, but I can look into that and see if we have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) coalition --

MS NAUERT: But the point is – the point is, these countries around the world understand – no one is ignorant to all the bad stuff that the Iranian regime has been involved with. And countries have an interest in joining us because we have a lot more work that we can do together, and recognizing that Iran needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive fashion.

QUESTION: They do, but I’m just wondering if you get this – if there is a high level of enthusiasm given the fact – for joining the U.S. given the fact that this administration has thus far not exactly been a joiner, but rather a withdrawer of international coalitions and – from international agreements and – so I’m trying – just trying --

MS NAUERT: Well, that – that’s kind of funny that you say that as the President was just hosting the NATO secretary general. That is an example of something that we stand firmly behind and continue to do so.

QUESTION: Yeah, I get that, but the TPP, the climate accord, the Iran deal --

MS NAUERT: Look, I know that’s a narrative that people would like to believe, but there were previous agreements --

QUESTION: By – yes, okay.

MS NAUERT: -- that the United States has made the decision, and this administration has made the decision that it’s not in the best interests of the American people to do that.

QUESTION: I --

MS NAUERT: When you talk about --

QUESTION: I get it.

MS NAUERT: -- certain trade agreements – let me finish – when you talk about certain trade agreements, the President believes, and he firmly believes, that we can sometimes get a better deal when we conduct, when we develop bilateral trade agreements rather than these multilateral trade agreements.

QUESTION: Understood, but other countries --

MS NAUERT: That is a not a bad thing when we’re looking out for the American people.

QUESTION: I’m not saying it is. I’m just saying, when other countries have – they have not been silent about their disappointment, anger, upset, whatever that the administration has removed the U.S. from these kinds of agreements. So I’m just curious if you can gauge their – the level of interest in joining the U.S. in a new coalition that is aimed at --

MS NAUERT: I can just tell you we’ve had conversations with them about it, they understand the threat that the Iranian regime poses, and we look forward to having more meetings and conversations with them along the way. Okay.

QUESTION: Would it include --

MS NAUERT: I’ve got to go.

QUESTION: Would it include the Iranian groups like Mujahedin-e Khalq?

MS NAUERT: Said, I have no information on that for you on that. Okay, thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:59 p.m.)

DPB # 28

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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - May 3, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





May 3, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



GEORGIA/UKRAINE/REGION



DEPARTMENT



PALESTINIANS/ISRAEL



NORTH KOREA



TURKEY/REGION



DEPARTMENT



UKRAINE



DEPARTMENT



IRAN



IRAQ


TRANSCRIPT:

3:00 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Good afternoon, everyone. It’s great to see you all. I hope everyone’s doing all right.

A few announcements to start out today. First, I’d like to start with recognizing all of you. As many of you journalists know today, today is the 25th anniversary of World Press Freedom Day. Journalists shine a light on many issues around the world, keeping citizens informed, prompting robust debate and discussion – we certainly face that here – and holding governments accountable. We honor the many journalists and media professionals who have dedicated their lives to the profession. We see all too often that journalists continue to take great risks to pursue this important work. We saw this earlier this week, certainly, in Afghanistan.

Journalists have been detained for their reporting in Burma, Cuba, Egypt, Turkey, and in China. The family members of Uighur journalists have been detained as a result of their relatives reporting on China’s widespread crackdown of Uighurs and other Muslims. Authorities have shut down or have attempted to shut down media outlets critical of the respective governments in Tanzania, in Cambodia, in the Philippines, and many other places as well.

In mid-April, the Nicaraguan Government ordered five television stations off the air during nationwide protests, and many journalists continue to be threatened, censored, or intimidated. We urge accountability for the murder of journalists in Malta, Mexico, Russia, and Slovakia, and the apparent assassination of a BBC Pashto reporter in Afghanistan on Monday. We are also outraged by Monday’s savage attack in Kabul claimed by ISIS that killed nine journalists and media professionals, including some, I know, from some of your organizations and from Radio Free Europe as well. We want to express our deepest condolences and sympathy for the loss of those brave reporters.

While these examples clearly demonstrate that the safety and independence of journalists and media outlets remains precarious in many environments, we’d also like to underscore the vital importance of credible news reporting to free and open democratic societies. Censorship and disinformation are common tactics for eroding press freedom, and we encourage people in all regions of the world to think critically about their sources of news and information.

Earlier this morning, the department hosted an interactive web chat to discuss the importance of media literacy in today’s evolving news and information landscape. Healthy and robust public debates based on facts, evidence, and reason are integral to civic engagement. With on-camera participation from a viewing group in Nairobi and more than 30 other viewing groups at posts around the world, the panelists highlighted ways that educators and students can develop their skills in analyzing and understanding the credibility and the biases of media sources. You can review the discussion at our DRL, at our Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor’s Facebook page at State DRL.

Next, I’d like to discuss our Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell’s travel to Georgia and Ukraine. Today, Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs Wess Mitchell is wrapping up his travel to Georgia and Ukraine. While in Tblisi from April 29th to May the 1st, he met with senior Georgian officials, including the president and the prime minister, to talk about our strong bilateral relationship and Georgia’s democratic and economic reforms. He reaffirmed the United States support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity with its – in its internationally recognized borders. He also reiterated that the United States stands by NATO’s 2008 Bucharest Declaration that Georgia will become a member of NATO. He also visited the administrative boundary line with the Russian-occupied Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, where are currently occupied by Russian forces in violation of the 2008 ceasefire agreement.

On May 2nd, secretary – Assistant Secretary Mitchell arrived in Kyiv, where he met with President Poroshenko, the prime minister, and other senior Ukrainian leaders. The assistant secretary affirmed our unbending support for Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of ongoing Russian aggression. He emphasized the importance of Ukraine adhering to the conditions of the IMF loan package that includes establishing a credible anticorruption court in line with the Venice Commission recommendations. He also announced an additional 5 million in cyber security assistance for Ukraine.

Finally, Assistant Secretary Mitchell reaffirmed our commitment to supporting Ukraine as it continues on the path to NATO and Euro-Atlantic integration, including the importance of adopting an appropriate law on national security.

Just a couple more. Next, I would like to highlight one of our colleagues here, and that is Felicia Schwartz. Felicia is a tremendous journalist with The Wall Street Journal. I say that not for your benefit, but her parents or her grandparents may be watching today.

Felicia, we are so excited for your new opportunity when you’ll be going to Tel Aviv to be the bureau chief for The Wall Street Journal. That is not an insignificant job, as you well know, and I just want to say how proud we are of you for doing that. You are an excellent reporter, you are a tough reporter, you are a fair reporter, and you’ve been a joy to work with.

About six weeks ago I got a call from Felicia. I was overseas somewhere, and it was the first hint that there might be something going on here at the State Department. Her sources are excellent. Congratulations to you, Felicia. We’ll certainly miss you and look forward to your next person coming in. Big shoes to fill. (Applause.)

Two more personnel things. And Michelle, I’d like to say congratulations on Best Dressed at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner. (Laughter.) She had a beautiful yellow dress that was really stunning, so I’d like to highlight that.

Lastly, we have a real personnel announcement here at the State Department, and I would like to announce that we are pleased to announce the acknowledgment and the arrival of Mr. Ulrich Brechbuhl, who will be serving as counselor to the State Department. Mr. Brechbuhl joins the department after having recently served as president of Appenseller Point – it’s a family investing and consulting business – and executive chairman of Avadyne Health. Mr. Brechbuhl began his career in public service as a student at the United States Military Academy – West Point – where he earned a Bachelor of Science Degree with Highest Distinction. During his six and a half years of active duty with the Army, her served as a cavalry officer, he worked on a wide range of assignments, including leading troops patrolling the Iron Curtain with the 2nd Cavalry and served as a general’s aide and working as an operations officer during the Persian Gulf War.

I had a chance to meet him the other day and spent a little bit of time with him earlier today. Part of what he will be doing here at the State Department is helping our new Secretary, Secretary Pompeo, get our team staffed up. The Secretary has acknowledged and highlighted the importance of filling vacant positions. As many of you know, we have a lot of them, and so he will be working very hard in filling up those positions. As the Secretary would say, we’re planning to get our team on the field.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. Just one quick one on World Press Freedom Day.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: And then I want to talk about North Korea. You mentioned the deaths of journalists in Russia, Malta, Slovakia, of course Kabul. Would you also condemn the recent deaths of journalists, Palestinian journalists in the Gaza Strip?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I mean look, there are, unfortunately, a lot of journalists who die all around the world. I’m not going to be able to list every single death of a journalist around the world, although that is certainly important and significant.

In terms of what you’re referring to, we are always saddened by the loss of life. I want to highlight that: We are always saddened by the loss of life. In terms of Israel, we would say the bigger issue is that the violence has to stop, and we understand that Israel has a right to defend itself. We are very firm here at the State Department and others in the administration about the right and the importance of a free press.

QUESTION: But you do acknowledge that these guys were reporting the news; they were not threatening the Israeli soldiers in any way, shape, or form?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have --

QUESTION: And they were --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have all the details on an investigation, but I will say we always are saddened by the loss of life and that Israel does have a right to defend itself. They are conducting an investigation. I am not going to speak to that investigation.

QUESTION: Okay. There are also – they also wounded four. There are 17 Palestinians in prison today as we speak. Would you call on the Israelis to let them go --

MS NAUERT: I do not have information about all of the specific cases. There are --

QUESTION: Would you – could you find – could you find out if we could --

MS NAUERT: I will see what I can find out for you, Said. But when there are cases that we are very familiar with, such as reporters who were detained in Burma, for example, when I do have specific information on people’s cases and we can speak about it, I’m certainly happy to do so. I think you know that very well.

QUESTION: But you do recognize that they were willfully killed by the Israelis, right, the two journalists?

MS NAUERT: Said, I don’t have any information on that. Okay?

QUESTION: Could you find out, please?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information on that. I would refer you to the Government of Israel on that.

I meant actually to go to Felicia for the first question today. My apologies, Josh. But Felicia, if you have a question, I’ll go to you after Josh and I finish up.

QUESTION: Well, I assume my North Korea question is the same as Josh’s, which is: What can you say? There’s been a lot of information swirling about the fate of the three Americans who are being held.

MS NAUERT: Sure. We’ve certainly been following their cases for quite some time. You and I and we all spent a lot of time in this room talking about the case of Otto Warmbier certainly last year. In terms of the reports – and there have been a ton of media reports; I’ve gotten so many calls and questions from all of you – I can just say we can’t confirm the validity of those reports at this point. As you all know, the safety and the welfare of U.S. citizens abroad is our top issue. We want to see our American citizens brought home. We have been asking that and we’ve been calling on that – the North Korean Government for that for quite some time. We want them to come home as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Do you know if --

QUESTION: Is this --

QUESTION: Is it the – I know that you don’t know if they were going to be released.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But as far as them being moved out of a prison into a hotel, is that information the U.S. has --

MS NAUERT: I just can’t confirm anything on that at this point. I don’t have any information on that.

QUESTION: And then can you tell us when Mayor Giuliani, who is now – works for President Trump, is talking about this on television, is he speaking on behalf of the U.S. Government?

MS NAUERT: I would just have to refer you to the White House on that, because I’ve not spoken with Mayor Giuliani about his role or his comments.

QUESTION: But in general, I mean, if in the future he appears on television and he makes comments about a major foreign policy issue, whether it be North Korea or --

MS NAUERT: Josh, I would say that’s a hypothetical.

QUESTION: Well, it’s not really, because it happened last night.

MS NAUERT: No, but you said if he does in the future.

QUESTION: Should we take that as a position --

MS NAUERT: That’s why I would say it’s a hypothetical, okay? I don’t have any information about what exactly his role is going to be, other than being a legal advisor to the President. So I’d just have to refer you to the White House on that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: And the fact that we started hearing these reports about the detainees – I think it’s been more than 24 hours now, so given that there has been so much communication and seemingly goodwill leading up to a summit, does the fact that we don’t really know if these reports are even true at this point say anything about the level and efficacy of communication between the U.S. and North Korea at this point?

MS NAUERT: Michelle, I can just say we can’t confirm at this time the validity of those reports. We certainly think it would be a very good sign if North Korea – and a wonderful gesture of goodwill – if North Korea were to release our three Americans who’ve been detained there.

QUESTION: So is communication really not working between these two countries at this point?

MS NAUERT: Michelle, I just can say that I can’t confirm the validity of those reports.

Hi.

QUESTION: The President in his tweets seems to be more optimistic, seems to have more information. Do you share this optimism about the --

MS NAUERT: I think we’re always cautiously optimistic when dealing with certain countries. North Korea would certainly --

QUESTION: Including on the detainees?

MS NAUERT: North Korea would certainly be one of them. This is obviously a priority for this administration. A week into the President’s term in office, he turned to our previous secretary of state and said, “Bring home Americans who are being held overseas.” The secretary, the President, the entire administration through the interagency worked on that very hard, and we’ve had some real successes in bringing home Americans who’ve been detained in Egypt and in elsewhere. This still continues to be a tremendous priority for the President and for Secretary Pompeo as well. I can’t comment further on the status of things. I can just say it would be a great step in the right direction for our people to be brought home.

QUESTION: You don’t have any sign that this is going on?

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: You don’t have any signs that this is going in the right direction?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any additional information on that, okay?

QUESTION: Heather --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hey, Janne.

QUESTION: Heather, are you aware of the video of the Iranian foreign minister in which he says they won’t be renegotiating --

MS NAUERT: We’ll come back. Let’s finish up anything on North Korea before we come back to Iran.

Hi. Go ahead. Hi, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you. Otto Warmbier’s father and his family filed a complaint against the North Korea in federal district court, I think last week. What is the comment you --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I mean, I can share with you that I know Otto Warmbier’s family is in a tremendous amount of pain. How could you not be? The loss of your son in such a brutal fashion. My understanding is that his family is meeting with Ambassador Haley today in New York, I believe. I think they met just a few hours ago. I have not been a part of those conversations so I’d have to refer you to USUN for additional information on that.

I can tell you that there was a follow-on meeting between the Japanese, the United States, and others, where they were talking about abductions in a general sense regarding North Korea. But that is all I have for you. I’ve not spoken with the Warmbier family.

QUESTION: President Trump at the table – he going to mention about it, Warmbier’s issues or the human right abuse issues, at the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un?

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure. I don’t want to get ahead of the President and what he intends to discuss with the North Koreans. I can tell you that human rights abuses – that is an issue that we always bring up with countries who are abusing human rights. You may recall a few weeks ago we released our Human Rights Report, and we were very clear in our description of North Korea and other countries, and we’ve certainly not backed away from that.

Okay. Anything else related to North Korea?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. So not on detainees, but – so at the Inter-Korean Summit, both Moon and Kim said that they want to make an effort to end the Korean war. So what’s the U.S. position on that? And then if, like, a peace treaty comes to happen, what is the position? Like what change, if any, will happen with U.S. troops in ROK and Japan?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think we covered this about a week and a half ago, when I was last briefing you all here in this room. And it would certainly be a wonderful thing to have the war formally brought to an end. That’s something that the President has said that he firmly supports. We would certainly support that as well. In terms of U.S. troop presence, I guess I’d refer you to President Moon’s comments from yesterday, or perhaps it was earlier today, which he said the U.S. military presence in South Korea is a matter of the U.S.-Korea alliance. It has no relevance to any peace treaty. Beyond that, I’d just have to refer you to the Department of Defense for any discussions about that.

QUESTION: Heather, one more.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Last one.

QUESTION: Secretary Pompeo yesterday during swearing-in ceremony said that he seeks permanent, verifiable, irreversible dismantlement of North Korea’s WMD. He actually said this several times during his nomination hearing, when he was in Jordan with the Japanese foreign minister. So this is quite different from the complete, verifiable, and irreversible dismantlement, so is this a higher bar for North Korea, or is it essentially the same?

MS NAUERT: We’re calling it CVID now. So because the State Department, the government likes acronyms so much, we’ve got a new one: CVID – complete, verifiable, irreversible denuclearization. That is our policy and that is the policy of Secretary Pompeo.

Okay. Let’s --

QUESTION: Wouldn’t that be PVID? You add another addition of PVID.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I don’t have anything on that for you. I don’t have anything on that for you today.

QUESTION: You don’t have – what’s the difference, CVID and PVID? Permanently --

MS NAUERT: I think our government policy has been very well known and explained a lot of times on how we are approaching negotiations with North Korea, the importance of that. Look, we would not be at this place where we are today without the maximum pressure campaign. If anything, if there’s – I’ve spoken more about our maximum pressure campaign than anything else in the past year-plus since I’ve been doing this job.

QUESTION: PVID means permanently --

MS NAUERT: We are seeing tremendous progress. We’ve gotten to this point where we can sit down and have conversations – we certainly hope and are looking forward to it – between the President of the United States and Kim Jong-un. And we are looking forward to what they have pledged, which is exactly that, denuclearization. Let’s move on to something else.

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: Sorry, one more on --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi. On Turkey, Turkey’s carrying out ethnic cleansing in Afrin, replacing the Kurdish population, much of which fled when Turkey attacked, and now they’re not allowed back to their homes. They’re being replaced with Arabs, who are themselves displaced from Ghouta and elsewhere. What’s your comment on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Laurie, we’ve been watching this situation very carefully in Afrin. We spent a lot of time covering this about a month or two ago, as you well know. 140,000 people have been displaced from Afrin, and as we can tell – as far as we can tell, they are not being allowed back in to their homes and communities. We have expressed grave concern about the humanitarian situation in Afrin over recent weeks and months. That remains a concern of ours today.

We call on all relevant sides, all relevant actors operating in the northwest – that includes Turkey, that includes Russia, that also includes Syria – to provide access for international humanitarian aid organizations and to allow for people to come home. When people go home – and this is something we always find important to highlight, is that it needs to be safe and it needs to be voluntary. They can’t be forced back in their homes, but we would like for them to be brought home or to be able to head home safely and as soon as possible.

QUESTION: Thank you. Secretary Pompeo is to meet the Turkish foreign minister shortly. Do you think this will be an issue when the two men meet?

MS NAUERT: I can tell you we have a lot of things to discuss with the Turkish foreign minister. As you know, they just met at NATO less than a week ago, where they had conversations about a wide range of issues. We have a lot of things to discuss with them, NATO-related and otherwise, so I imagine that that could be a part of the conversation.

QUESTION: Turkey.

MS NAUERT: Hey. Hi, Ilhan. How are you?

QUESTION: Thank you so much. Today, as you mentioned in the beginning, World Press Freedom Day, and you have been talking about Turkey due to severe conditions in the press freedom.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Today, Amnesty International launch a new campaign for Turkey. Turkey is still the country, most jails – most journalists jailed in a country in the worldwide. My question is, first of all, do you join Amnesty International for this campaign to say free Turkey media?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think our position on the importance of a free press is very well known. In countries it is particularly important for people to be able to speak their minds. When they speak their minds, they may not always be agreeing with the government, but that is certainly no reason for a government to throw somebody in jail or a journalist in jail. You’re absolutely right, there are more journalists jailed in Turkey than in any other country around the world. That is a tremendous concern. We believe that more voices rather than fewer voices being heard helps advance a democratic society and helps give people voice to their concerns.

We support the goal of improved media freedom in Turkey; we’ve discussed that a lot here at the State Department. We raise the issue – I want to tell you – directly with the Turkish Government on many occasions. We continue to highlight that. We also do it not only face to face with our counterparts but also through various multilateral institutions. So thank you for highlighting that, and we’ll continue to raise our concerns with press freedom in Turkey and elsewhere.

QUESTION: Thank you. One more question on Turkey.

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Last week, three senators proposed a bill to block F-35 fighter jets to Turkey due to some of the American citizens have been arrested in Turkey, but there are other conditions as well such as S-400 air defense system from Russia. Do you agree with this bill? Are you going to support this bill?

MS NAUERT: Well, as a matter of course, we don’t comment on pending legislation with Congress, but I can tell you that we have had serious concerns about Turkey’s potential acquisition of the S-400 system. Under NATO and under the NATO agreement, which of course, Turkey is a NATO member, you’re only supposed to buy, they are only supposed to buy, weapons and other materiel that are interoperable with other NATO partners. We don’t see that as being interoperable. We obviously, though, have a robust defense trade relationship with the Government of Turkey, and we will continue to raise our concerns with them on any kind of pending sales or anything of that nature.

Okay.

QUESTION: What is the cutoff for when a pending sale falls under that or not? For instance, the Turks have been saying, well, before this CAATSA kicked in, we had this already kind of locked in place and so it’s grandfathered in. Is that consistent with the U.S. --

MS NAUERT: Well, that doesn’t – this, what we’re talking about now, doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with CAATSA. CAATSA is certainly a part of it, but the interoperability is something that long predated CAATSA because that’s a NATO agreement.

QUESTION: Sure. We don’t sanction people for interoperability.

MS NAUERT: Right.

QUESTION: We’re sanctioning people for violating CAATSA.

MS NAUERT: And we have had many conversations with our partners around the world – Turkey being one of them; there are a lot of other governments that I could cite as well – where we are speaking to them about CAATSA and the restrictions under CAATSA, and if you run afoul against CAATSA what exactly is at stake. So that would be --

QUESTION: But this is a gray area here where nobody knows whether those restrictions apply to deals that were already kind of in the works.

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information for you on that. If I can get something from our Pol-Mil people, I’ll certainly look into it and see what I can bring to you. Okay?

All right. Hey, Michelle.

QUESTION: Just based on a couple of things that you said prior on staffing and wanting to staff things up under Pompeo, what is the latest thinking on filling Joseph Yun’s position?

MS NAUERT: That is not a question that I’ve asked the Secretary. I know we’re in solid hands. We have – a lot of great people are assisting here, but his first day really in the building was just two days ago. So these are the things that I know people will be bringing to his attention. I’m sure he is well aware that that position exists. He is going to spend time – and in fact, he’s already started interviewing people here at the State Department for various positions. He shared with me this morning that he intends to interview people throughout the weekend.

So this is a priority of his. He said that in his hearings on Capitol Hill, he said that to us privately, and I know he’s alluded that to all of you publicly as well.

QUESTION: In the past two days, he’s already done interviews? Or --

MS NAUERT: He’s been talking to people already. Yes, he has. Yes, he is.

QUESTION: Do you know how many or what positions they --

MS NAUERT: I can’t say how many or characterize or what positions.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Some of these will just be private conversations. But it’s something that is important to him --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: -- and he understands and recognizes the need to have not only our people hard at work, but to have our people well – to have our department well-staffed.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you --

QUESTION: And you had a whole lot to say about press freedom, basically speaking to the world on that. So when the President of the United States and those around him repeatedly say the words “fake news,” isn’t that disinformation?

MS NAUERT: Look, we’ve discussed this as well. You and I have had many exchanges on this, and that’s part of what the beauty of a free press and the beauty of a First Amendment when people can say what they want. You don’t have to agree with it, others don’t have to agree with it, but that is certainly within his own right to do so. When we look at the absence of a free press in other countries, we look at what those countries are doing to journalists, and that’s something that we do not see here in the United States.

In Turkey, for example, some of our – some of your colleagues here, if they were to head home to Turkey, they would be arrested. Why? In part, because of the job that they are doing each and every day. One of your other colleagues from Afghanistan, if she were to return home, she would once again, without a doubt, be subject to harassment, death threats, and the like because her family’s been threatened before.

QUESTION: So because that’s not happening here, the White House lying and saying “fake news” is a better deal?

MS NAUERT: Michelle, I’m not going to get into this. Look, it’s the right of the free press, and it’s the President, and he has the right to speak his mind and has a right to be concerned about stories that he feels are inaccurate. Okay? I’ll leave it at that. I will refer you to the White House beyond that.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Hey, Lesley.

QUESTION: Can I – can you just give us a kind of flavor of what the Secretary’s been up to the last 24 hours?

MS NAUERT: Since you saw him last?

QUESTION: Yeah, right. So --

MS NAUERT: Let’s see, you saw him last on Monday night. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Did he have a meeting today with senior State Department officials --

MS NAUERT: He did, yes.

QUESTION: So give us just some kind of a flavor.

MS NAUERT: Sure. So I don’t know what time the secretary walked in the building, but as an Army guy and a former West Pointer, I’m pretty sure it was pretty early in the morning. Fortunately, he didn’t make us go on a PT run or any of that, so – but I do know he’s hard at work. He had a meeting with senior staff this morning in which he was really in listen mode, and that’s one of the things that I’ve learned about him since having traveled with him last week, and you and some of our – your other colleagues as well. He listens; he asks questions and then he listens. He wants to learn from us, and he cites this old story years ago where somebody said to him, early on in his military career, “You would be well served to just shut up and listen.” And that’s exactly what we’re finding right now. He’s asked me a lot of questions; he’s asked my colleagues a lot of questions, which is such a terrific sign, when somebody wants to hear form the experts in the building or the people who are currently doing their jobs what is working well, what isn’t working well, and what can we do better. So he’s having lots of conversations with people.

QUESTION: Can you also give a sense on – you said he’s doing a lot of interviews. Where is he looking to fill first and quickly?

MS HOLMES: I haven’t asked him his priority on which positions he wants to fill first. Obviously, senior staff is something that is important, but all kinds of jobs here are important at the State Department, so I know he’ll be looking at filling those as well.

QUESTION: What about ambassadorships, Heather? Is he meeting with the President already to talk about ambassadorships? Will he, do you expect, have a greater role than Secretary Tillerson in kind of identifying candidates for the President?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I would say without a doubt. As we all saw yesterday and the day before, the fact that the President came in here at the State Department for the first time since he was elected to office is significant. It shows the strength and the trust between the President and also our new Secretary of State. Secretary Pompeo has said that he wants to fill these positions. He recognizes the importance of filling – whether it’s State Department staff or our ambassador posts. I think that’s why you saw some of the news coming out over the past week about people being nominated to certain posts that had been not – had not been filled previously. So I expect – and he has said to the Senate, look, I’m going to bringing a lot of people before you, and I take him at his word.

QUESTION: And then one other – he had breakfast this morning with Secretary Mattis and John Bolton. I know Secretary Tillerson met with Mattis for breakfast very frequently. Do you expect that the three men will kind of make this a regular configuration in terms of meeting and kind of hashing out foreign policy?

MS NAUERT: I would anticipate that that would be the case, yeah, that we would have more regular meetings with the Secretary’s colleagues at the NSC and elsewhere.

Okay.

QUESTION: Quick question, Heather --

QUESTION: On Iran.

MS NAUERT: All right, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Are the negotiations between E3 and you and the U.S., the State Department, still going on? One week to go before the decision the President has to make.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, those --

QUESTION: Or --

MS NAUERT: Those – go ahead.

QUESTION: There’s a meeting planned before May 12th and – or is already the Secretary presenting the President with these options?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I can tell you that the Secretary and the President have had a lot of conversations about this topic in general. Some of these conversations I believe predate the Secretary’s position here at the State Department because of the nature of national security issues. So he’s very well steeped in the details of Iran. We continue – the State Department does – continues to have talk with some – talks with our E3 members about our concerns with the JCPOA. I don’t have any specific details for you, but I can just tell you those conversations are happening very – happening very often.

Felicia.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: One more on Iran.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: It’s quite technical if the President decides to leave on May 12th.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, what’s the first part?

QUESTION: It’s quite technical, like, the sanctions regime, putting it back in place. I’m not asking you to prejudge the President’s decision, but since he’s left it open as a possibility that he would leave the deal, have you or people in this building been traveling – well, I don’t think you would travel to do this, but have people in this building been traveling to brief officials in Russia and China and --

MS NAUERT: Ye of little faith. Come on, you think I’m not traveling to talk about the JCPOA? I’m teasing; I’m not the technical expert, you’re absolutely right about that. I can tell you we’ve had a lot of talks. Brian Hook, on the last trip, traveling over when he was in Brussels, had conversations with his counterparts and colleagues, with other countries, talking about our concerns. And our concerns are very well known about the JCPOA. I know he’s talked about a range of options that are on the table.

QUESTION: But are your concerns just like some of the technical – like, in 2012 when they instituted this same sanctions regime that the President could snap back into place.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) air travel --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information – I wasn’t present for those meetings, so I don’t have any information about everything that was discussed, but I can tell you overall, our concerns regarding the JCPOA have been addressed significantly, and we’ve also looked at ways of strengthening the JCPOA.

QUESTION: I just – do our allies understand how their – the businesses and banks in their countries might be affected?

MS NAUERT: I believe so. I believe so. I think we’ve been clear about the ramifications and how things would work in that nature. Okay?

Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: A follow-up on --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Conor.

QUESTION: A follow-up on something you just said, that your concerns have been addressed significantly: You mean, like, they’ve been heard or things have been changed to address --

MS NAUERT: They’ve been heard.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MS NAUERT: We’ve addressed those concerns.

QUESTION: On Iraq?

QUESTION: A follow-up on that?

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: I had questions on Ukraine if we can --

QUESTION: Can I have --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, Conor.

QUESTION: I have a question on Ukraine if we can --

MS NAUERT: Oh, sure. Yeah.

QUESTION: So a member of parliament there and the special corruption prosecutor both confirmed to The New York Times the four investigations involving President Trump’s former campaign chairman Paul Manafort have been halted. I just wanted to give you the opportunity to speak to that. Did anyone from the U.S. encourage or ask the Ukrainian Government to halt those investigations?

MS NAUERT: I can tell you in terms of Ukraine, I can speak to the sale and I know a lot of you have been very interested in the sale of Javelin missiles to Ukraine. I can tell you that that was something that was on the table for a very long time before we announced back in 2017 that the President decided to provide the Javelin missile systems to Ukraine. Those were delivered just a few weeks ago. Somehow a bunch of you missed it that those were actually delivered. So somebody did a good job of keeping that quiet.

But regarding the special counsel’s investigation, I don’t have anything for you on that. I’m not going to comment on that.

QUESTION: But – so you’re not denying it or confirming it?

MS NAUERT: No, I cannot comment on anything regarding that investigation. I’d have to refer you to the White House for that. Okay?

QUESTION: You mentioned, though, encouraging Ukraine to set up this special corruption – anti-corruption court.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Would you encourage them to pursue these cases?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know the details of all of these cases, but we have very frequent conversations with the Ukrainian Government. As I noted at the top, our Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell was just there yesterday or the day before yesterday, I believe it was. And so we have a lot of conversations with them about our concerns, about corruption and other matters, and we make our points very clear with them.

Also I should add that our then-Acting Secretary John Sullivan at the G7 in Toronto, he had conversations with the Ukrainian Government as well expressing our concerns, and that’s all I have on that. Okay?

Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: Can I ask --

MS NAUERT: Nice to see you again.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Thank you so much. You had a statement yesterday that the Department of State is establishing a Global Engagement Center technology series regarding foreign propaganda.

MS NAUERT: Correct.

QUESTION: And I wanted to know why in your statement you didn’t mention any country.

MS NAUERT: In the statement we didn’t mention any country? I think that’s because it is so pervasive. A big part of our conversations at NATO included talks about state-sponsored propaganda and state-sponsored disinformation. Unfortunately, there are far too many countries that participate in that, and in speaking with our allies, we were able to have conversations where we are all on the same page expressing our deep concerns about Russian disinformation, disinformation from other parts of the world. We certainly see that. I know you’re particularly interested in Cuba. Cuba, we see that happening as well.

We didn’t mention any particular countries. We just didn’t happen to do it. But we have a lot of conversations internally in the building about that very matter.

Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Will further meetings be taking place here in the State Department in this regard with other experts?

MS NAUERT: Regarding just disinformation in general?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Yes. In fact, I have quite a few meetings scheduled on that very subject. I’ve had two meetings yesterday on that subject alone. It was also included, let me mention, in the G7 communique, the communique that came out of the G7, where the countries all agreed to work on state-sponsored disinformation and propaganda and how we could best form I’ll just call it a channel, so to speak, where we can best communicate best practices and ways that we can combat that. We’ve seen that be a tremendous problem in countries all around the world. We know that the news out of Mexico today, for example, with people pushing out disinformation. So we continue to highlight those concerns, and certainly, our allies and partners are well aware of the fact that this exists.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. And I’m going to have to wrap it up in – I’m going to have to wrap it up in just a few minutes.

QUESTION: Can I ask on (inaudible)?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) to one more question on Iran because --

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: -- Iran foreign minister said Iran will not renegotiate the nuclear deal. So is there any comments from this podium?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. What was the last part of your question?

QUESTION: Iran will not renegotiate the nuclear deal.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comments on --

MS NAUERT: Look, I think that’s a hypothetical at this point. Some might consider it to be bluster. I’m just not going to comment on that. Okay?

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Question Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, go ahead. Last question on Iraq. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. So some of the minority groups in Iraq are concerned about some political parties calling for majoritarian rule in Iraq, and --

MS NAUERT: Calling for what rule?

QUESTION: A majoritarian rule.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Excluding the Kurds and the Sunnis.

MS NAUERT: I see.

QUESTION: Do you have a comment on that? And then I have a follow-up.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. First, what I’d like to say about Iraq is congratulations on the election that they are holding. May 12th – so that would be nine day or so from now – their parliamentary directions. And what is incredible about the fact that they’re holding that elections, they have 320 parliamentary seats, 7,000 candidates. I mean, imagine that. That’s – it’s a tremendous number, 50 parties. So I think we’ve just seen such incredible success with the march toward democracy in Iraq. That specific – your specific question, I don’t have any information for you on that, but I just overall want to applaud Iraqi leaders for taking part in getting them to this point.

QUESTION: Well, thank you. But about the parties and the candidates, a lot of them are not able to campaign for their candidacy in disputed areas, where U.S. has called for a joint governance in the area, but that’s not happening. And it’s under some sort of military rule now, and parties are boycotting, and ISIS is reappearing. Are you in any talks with Iraq or the government in Erbil for some sort of negotiated joint governance in that area?

MS NAUERT: We have a lot of conversations with the Iraqi Government. They’re a steadfast partner of the United States. In terms of specific conversations about your questions, I don’t have any information for you on that. I can tell you more broadly that, with regard to the election, some of our various programs at DRL – one of our bureaus here, Democracy, Labor and Human Rights – they’re partnering with the National Democratic Institute to implement a $3 million program that aims at – aimed at strengthening government – governance over all, and then boosting voter participation. USAID also has some separate programs through the Independent High Electoral Commission to try to ensure that all Iraqis – women, minority groups, and the like – all have access to the polls and to elections. If you’d like any more information on that, I’d be more than happy to get that to you.

QUESTION: But generally – the disputed areas, generally, they’re supposed to be governed together with other groups, and they are not. Do you have --

MS NAUERT: I would have to look into that; I don’t have that level of detail on the subject, okay. I’d have to look into that and back with you.

QUESTION: Getting back --

MS NAUERT: All right. We got to go. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather.

QUESTION: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:38 p.m.)

DPB # 26

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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - April 10, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





April 10, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

QATAR



ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN SULLIVAN



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



NORTH KOREA



QATAR



CHINA/TAIWAN



NORTH KOREA



CUBA



PAKISTAN



SYRIA



INDIA


TRANSCRIPT:

3:01 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi. Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS NAUERT: It’s nice to see you all.

QUESTION: Welcome back.

MS NAUERT: Do you notice anything different? No? No? Look at this little book. I went on vacation, and the book went on a diet. I thought you all would enjoy that. So we’ll see how this works today.

QUESTION: So quality has replaced quantity?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know about that. It’s kind of like when my kids go to school and I use that opportunity to clean their rooms, and they don’t notice. (Laughter.) That’s exactly what went on the past week.

QUESTION: The optimism.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, yeah. So great to see you all again. Hope you’re having a terrific day. A couple announcements to bring you. First, as many of you know, the Qatari emir is in Washington today. We warmly welcome him, His Highness Qatari Emir Al-Thani, to the United States. The President met with the emir a short while ago, and Acting Secretary Sullivan will meet with him this afternoon.

Qatar is a highly valued strategic partner to the United States and also a friend. You may recall that we held the inaugural U.S.-Qatar Strategic Dialogue here at the State Department on January the 30th, during which we collaborated on defense, counterterrorism, human rights, trade, aviation, and also investment. We’re building upon that dialogue and look forward to discussing these and other important issues of bilateral cooperation during the emir’s visit. Since the dialogue and building on our July 2017 counterterrorism MOU, Qatar has continued to advance its counterterrorism and counterterror financing efforts.

In addition to that, I’d like to announce that Acting Secretary of State John Sullivan will travel to Lima, Peru tomorrow, from April 11th to the 14th, to accompany the Vice President at the Eighth Summit of the Americas. We strongly support Peru’s ambitious summit agenda, focusing on democratic government – governance against corruption. During the summit, the United States will promote priorities of mutual interest to the region, including supporting democracy, addressing political and humanitarian crises, and restoring democracy in Venezuela. Also, they’ll discuss stemming corruption and transnational crime, promoting economic prosperity, and also women’s empowerment.

While in Lima, the acting secretary will meet separately with leaders from Peru, Brazil, Haiti, and Mexico. He also will meet with the heads of delegation of the governments of the Bahamas, Barbados, Guyana, Jamaica, and Saint Lucia, as well with leaders from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras. As you may know, civil society will have a vital role in ensuring summit priorities reflect the practical needs of the citizens and businesses of the Americas. The acting secretary will engage with members of the Cuban and Venezuelan independent civil society groups to underscore some of those priorities. So we look forward to providing readouts and information from the acting secretary’s trip as it goes forward.

Lastly, we have some students in the back, I understand, from Georgetown. Welcome. We’re always happy to have students join us here. And that kind of gets into my last announcement. This week, the State Department is proud to announce the inaugural list of U.S. higher education institutions that sent the most students overseas on Benjamin Gilman International Scholarship Program in the academic year 2016 to 2017. Were any of you Gilman scholars by any chance? No. Well, we’re happy to have you here anyway.

The Gilman Program broadens U.S. student population that studies and interns abroad by providing scholarships to outstanding undergraduate students who, due to financial constraints, might not otherwise be able to participate. Since the program’s establishment in 2001, more than 1,300 U.S. institutions have sent more than 25,000 Gilman scholars to 145 countries around the globe. We especially want to congratulate the University of California Berkeley, Georgetown, Spelman College, Portland Community College, and San Antonio College for heading up the top of their respective categories. Congratulations.

The State Department is committed to helping the next generation of diverse American leaders foster mutual understanding and develop important skills in support of our national security and economic prosperity. Congratulations to all the Gilman Program students and institutions. The full list and additional information about these scholarships is available at gilmanscholarship.org. So I would encourage you to take a look.

And finally, as many of you know --

QUESTION: Wait a second. You said that was the last one.

MS NAUERT: No, this is more of a personal note.

QUESTION: Oh.

MS NAUERT: And you will be all happy to hear about this. For the past year, I’ve been doing this job with the assistance of our fantastic press team and with Robert as – you all know Robert very well. But I am more than thrilled to announce that we have an acting deputy spokesperson now, and that is my colleague Elizabeth Fitzsimmons. Many of you will get the chance to meet her in the coming days, but this has been a long work in progress. Elizabeth, would you please stand up?

For those of you who have not met Elizabeth – and many of my colleagues around the world will know Elizabeth – she is a career member of the Senior Foreign Service. That’s significant here at the State Department. She served as deputy executive secretary to Secretaries Kerry and also to Secretary Tillerson, and she served as a deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of South and Central Asia. She’s served overseas in Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, and also Bulgaria. She, by the way, is married to a DS officer, and she is a mother of five children, and she’s also – doesn’t look it – she’s a grandmother. (Laughter.)

So we’re thrilled to have Elizabeth joining us and look forward to having her take your calls, too.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: All right.

MS NAUERT: Or I could just hand them over to Elizabeth. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. Welcome back.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: And Hoya Saxa to our guests in the back.

MS NAUERT: Did you hear that?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: Let’s start with Syria.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Oh, actually, just on Acting Secretary Sullivan’s trip.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: You mentioned that he was going to meet with Cuban and Venezuelan civil society.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: I notice that you guys put out a statement critical of the Cubans --

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- for blocking or frustrating or interfering somehow with civil society getting there. Are there any plans to meet with actual members of those delegations, if they’re going to be there?

MS NAUERT: I believe that some may be headed to Peru for those meetings, but not all. Let me double-check on that and get back with you.

QUESTION: Okay. But are there – are there going to be Cuban and Venezuelan officials at the summit that he might meet with, or no?

MS NAUERT: That I am not sure of. Hold on, let me check his schedule right here and see if I have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Is he going to meet with anybody from the Cuban official delegation?

MS NAUERT: Let me check and see what I have for you on that schedule, which has still been coming together.

QUESTION: It can wait. It’s not a – it’s not an urgent question. It’s just --

MS NAUERT: Okay. You know what I’m going to do? I’m going to hand his schedule off to my colleagues. They can take a look at it and we can come back to this.

QUESTION: All right.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Let’s start with – on Syria. What can you tell us regarding the – any latest contact between the acting secretary and foreign officials? Has there been any on a possible response?

MS NAUERT: Yes. So this is obviously an interagency process. The United States, through the White House, through the State Department, and others of well – as well, have been having conversations with our allies and partners overseas. Deputy Secretary – pardon me. Acting Secretary John Sullivan spoke on two occasions with Foreign Minister Boris Johnson of the UK yesterday. I believe a readout was provided of that call.

We are looking for a coordinated response, whatever that response might be, to the situation in Syria.

QUESTION: Has he spoken to anyone other than Foreign Secretary Johnson?

MS NAUERT: Not to my awareness. I have spoken with him on two occasions today. I don’t have any additional --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: -- calls to read out for you.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, do you expect him to? Because, I mean, the President has spoken now twice to President Macron and at least once to Prime Minister May.

MS NAUERT: Yes. So the President spoke with Prime Minister Theresa May. The President also spoke with Macron. I’m not sure if Acting Secretary Sullivan was on that call or not, but we are closely linked up with the White House, with the NSC, and other partners and departments on this.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Do you believe that – so a lot of the European officials believe that you can’t really do anything at against the Syrians and the Russians until you’ve got some kind of evidence. What is the U.S. point of view as far as collecting that evidence, and do you believe that evidence would be – we had Russians in at the site yesterday. Do you believe that that is enough evidence to make a move either through the UN or directly?

MS NAUERT: Well, the OPCW, I believe it was just yesterday or earlier today, announced that it would be on the ground gathering evidence. We see the OCPW as the impartial body to be able to collect this kind of evidence. Let me remind you how difficult it is to get. To get to these – first of all, you’re in a war zone. This is a very dangerous environment for anyone to go into. So for these people to be able to go into these environments to collect samples, perhaps through partner organizations that they work with and also themselves – I understand they have their own inspectors who go about doing this – collecting that information and then analyzing that information.

So that’s an important role. They’re the gold standard in collecting this type of information, and we would certainly rely upon them, as we have in other instances, to take a look at that.

QUESTION: So you’re first waiting for the OPCW to come back with something before you can make any kind of --

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not saying that. The United States Government has its own mechanisms to be able to look into things. Some of these would be intelligence matters that I’m not going to get into. You know full well why. The United States has been sharing information with its allies and partners, as have our allies been sharing information with us. But the OPCW we recognize and are pleased to see that they are able to get to the area or eventually be able to get to the area, we hope as soon as possible, to be able to collect samples.

We have talked about before the Joint Investigative Mechanism that Russia thwarted, and the United Nations today is looking at a vote to come up with a new form of a Joint Investigative Mechanism. And that is something that we would strongly support, because not only do you need that body to investigate what exactly was used, but you need a body to be able to determine who was responsible for it, and that’s exactly what the Joint Investigative Mechanism did.

Now, we do know that some sort of a substance was used, a chemical was used. We’re just not sure at this point today exactly what was used. Okay?

Andrea, go ahead.

QUESTION: Following up on the forensics of this, you know something was used. You don’t know exactly what or by whom. But absent hard evidence, which may take a long time, if ever, is it possible that there would not be some kind of response? Is there a threshold for taking action if it’s clear that some kind of chemical was used, and that there are only certain players who have access to such chemicals?

MS NAUERT: Well, look, we know that only certain players, to use your word, have access to these kinds of chemical weapons. We know that it requires certain kinds of delivery mechanisms to use those types of weapons. Not everyone out there has access to those delivery mechanisms. So we have that information; we’re familiar with it. I’m not going to get ahead of the President and the White House and what the interagency determines is the best route going forward, but I can tell you that we are in close coordination with our allies and partners on this.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But given the pace of phone calls and our own reporting in different capitals, it does seem likely that this will be a multilateral response; if there is a response that it will be different from what happened on April 6, 2017.

MS NAUERT: I can just say –

QUESTION: Is that a fair conclusion?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to confirm that for you. I think our calls are certainly obvious, that we stand strongly with our allies. We’ve had calls with the French and with the British. We’ve had information sharing and also are in conversations with people, as you would expect.

QUESTION: And could I ask if you could take a question? NBC News reported today – one of my colleagues, Courtney Kube – that the Russians have been jamming the GPS of our drones, which may or may not be one reason why it’s been difficult to collect photographic evidence, and that this has been going on for several weeks.

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that, Andrea. I’ll see if I can get something for you. Some of that may fall under intelligence, and we may not be able to answer that. But I can’t even confirm the premise of your question. This is the first I’m hearing of it.

QUESTION: Heather, can I just ask very quickly --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you saying, in response to both Lesley and Andrea, that even absent a determination from the OC – OP – OPCW or this JIM, the joint investigative message that is likely to be --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. The new type of JIM, yeah.

QUESTION: -- vetoed today – even without any conclusion from them, the administration believes it has the – it can act?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get ahead of anything that the White House may announce. That’s not my roll to do that. I can just say it’s very clear that some sort of chemical weapon was used, and that is a tremendous concern to the United States.

QUESTION: That’s a certainty, right?

MS NAUERT: Hi. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: As the United States is coordinating with allies on this, there’s a move in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to write a new authorization for the use of military force. What kind of input has the State Department had, as this sort of come up as the Secretary had left – Secretary Tillerson has left? Where’s the administration on an AUMF? It could be moved in the committee as early as next week or so.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So we haven’t changed our position. Our position remains exactly what it was. Director Pompeo and I have not had a chance – perhaps he’s discussed this with other colleagues here at the State Department to review his opinion and how he envisions it. Also our lawyers obviously would play a strong role in that, so we just have not had those conversations yet. But as it stands right now, our policy remains exactly the same.

QUESTION: So as the U.S. considers a response, it believes it has the authority to act as it can and should?

MS NAUERT: I would defer to the White House on that, but yes.

Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: While you coordinate with the U.S. allies, do you also have – or do you plan to have contact with the Russian officials, government to avoid any escalation if there is to be a response by the Western countries?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any calls or meetings to read out on the Russians at this point. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I move on?

MS NAERT: Hi, Said.

QUESTION: Could I –

MS NAUERT: Oh, wait. Hold on.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Michel.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. And we’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Sure.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Michel.

QUESTION: Hi. How are you?

MS NAUERT: Nice to see you.

QUESTION: Nice to see you, too. Will the U.S. be waiting for the OPCW investigators to come back from Syria to react, or you have enough proofs or – to react?

MS NAUERT: I think I answered that question. That is something we believe we know, that some form of a chemical weapon was used in that attack in Syria that has killed at least 85 people that we are aware of so far. So the United States is convinced and knows that some sort of a chemical weapon was used. We also recognize the importance of the OPCW, and we don’t know their timeline for being able to get in, collect information. We have our intelligence and then they have their information from the ground, so we have different kinds of information.

QUESTION: The President, though, was pretty clear that there was going to be a price to pay. I mean, he literally said that. Why – since April 6th of last year, when he – when they ordered the missile strikes in Syria, and now – or until this last incident – there have been numerous uses of chemical weapons that have been alleged in Syria. What makes this one hit that threshold that a price has to be paid?

MS NAUERT: I think, Matt, to answer that question, we have to look at the number of attacks that have taken place, the pace, how quickly these attacks are now taking place. This will be the ninth attack using some sort of chemical substance this year alone. It used to be that when attacks would take place the world would stand up and take attention and it has become, in the view of the U.S. Government and many others as well, far too common. So I think it’s taken the world to stand up and say this is unacceptable; this is horrific, and we can’t stand for this anymore.

QUESTION: But why if those – if that figure is correct, if this is the ninth this year alone, since – what makes this different than the sixth or the fifth, that you would now say there has to be a price to be paid and you didn’t before?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I would just say that a lot of this has been based on conversations with our allies and partners overseas. And beyond that, I’m not going to be able to get into it.

QUESTION: Can I move on?

QUESTION: Another part of Syria?

MS NAUERT: Hi, Said. Okay. Then I’ll go to Said. Laurie.

QUESTION: Okay. This has to do with Iran. And Israel struck Iranian targets at Syria’s T-4 Airbase on Sunday, which is the second time in as many months. Do you share Israel’s concern about Iran’s presence in Syria?

MS NAUERT: We have talked about this a lot, that Iran supports Hizballah. Iran has sent not only fighters but also equipment into Syria. Iran has been a bad actor in Syria and other parts around the world. They have further destabilized the country of Syria. They have also bolstered the regime of Bashar al-Assad, enabling the regime to be able to commit attacks against innocent civilians, not just in Eastern Ghouta and elsewhere, but around the country as well. Of course we’re absolutely concerned about Iran’s presence or meddling, whether it be through proxies, in the country of Syria.

QUESTION: So it’s possible, when President Trump talks about everyone will pay a price involved in this, that the United States could also strike Iranian targets in Syria as a response?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of what – if we were to take any kind of action, I’m not sure what our targets would be.

Okay. Said, go ahead. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can I move on to Gaza?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Last Friday, the Israelis killed a Palestinian journalist. He was – he had a vest that was clearly marked press. I wanted your reaction and comment on that, if you have one.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I can say we’re certainly aware of reports that a journalist operating in Gaza was killed in the clashes in Gaza. I don't have the specifics on his particular case, but I can tell you we’re looking into it.

QUESTION: So you’re not sure that he was targeted and that the marking was clear, that he was wearing a vest that said --

MS NAUERT: I’m just saying I don't have the specifics on this case.

QUESTION: Do you have --

MS NAUERT: But I can assure you, we are looking into that.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the fact that the Israelis are targeting the press?

MS NAUERT: Look, I can say that we would call for renewed emphasis on having peaceful dialogue, trying to get two parties back to talk about the future of peace for the Israelis and Palestinians. And certainly the events of the past week and a half or so have been very troubling.

QUESTION: Okay. But you know, you have not even --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: One at a time.

QUESTION: You have not issued a statement and so on. I remember, I raised on the 29th of last month that there was going to be such a thing the following day --

MS NAUERT: I know you – you did say that. And I said, “Said, I hope you are wrong.”

QUESTION: -- and I – well, I hope I am, but my hope just withered away.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: So – but they did use excessive force. Do you think that the Israelis are using excessive force to close these demonstrations that are really far? I mean, the reports show that Mr. Jason Greenblatt suggested that they keep away 500 feet. This journalist, Yasser Murtaja, was hit at like 350 meters, which is almost 1,000 feet. So they are demonstrating in their own enclave basically. You are not calling on the Israelis to stop targeting civilians?

MS NAUERT: What – Israel, from my understanding, has just announced that it will conduct an internal investigation into the use of force, and so we will stand by and we will watch what comes out of that, okay?

QUESTION: Heather, I’m sorry. You said you were aware of reports that a journalist was killed.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: You haven’t been able to confirm? The guy was buried over the weekend at a funeral that was quite – it was attended by a lot of people.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. And I’m aware of that, yes.

QUESTION: But not just of reports. I mean, you know that this guy was killed.

MS NAUERT: That is correct. Yes.

QUESTION: And I think you might know a little bit more – maybe, maybe not – but because this – the company that he worked for, that he cofounded and co-owned had last month gotten – been vetted and was approved for a grant from USAID. Now – okay, well first of all, can you say that that is true, that that is correct?

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that he was vetted according to U.S. Government guidelines, but I don't have anything more for you on that.

QUESTION: Okay. So would – the U.S. Government guidelines would allow for a member of Hamas to get funding – funding from USAID?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I don’t know the specifics of the case. I’ve not been involved in any of that, but --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if you could --

MS NAUERT: -- if I get anything for you on that, I’ll be happy to bring it to you.

QUESTION: The Israeli defense minister has said that although he was wearing a journalist’s bulletproof vest with the word “press” clearly emblazoned on it, he was a member of Hamas, a member of Hamas’s armed wing, and with the equivalent rank of captain, and that he was disguising himself as a journalist. And I want to know – I mean, if he was in fact vetted and approved for USAID for a U.S. taxpayer grant, either the USAID vetting process is not very good or it allows for a potential – possible Hamas militant to get U.S. funding, or the Israeli defense minister is wrong or worse.

MS NAUERT: All I can say is that we’re looking into that, okay? We’re looking at all of this.

QUESTION: Let me ask just one last --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Allow me just one – one last –

QUESTION: Heather.

QUESTION: One last question.

MS NAUERT: Yes, go ahead.

QUESTION: Please. Today, the Israeli minister of defense, Lieberman, said – told The Jerusalem Post, an Israeli newspaper, that there are no civilians in Gaza. Do you have any comment on that?

MS NAUERT: I do not. I do not.

QUESTION: Would you look into that, please?

MS NAUERT: If I have an answer, I will give it to you, certainly.

Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather. Heather.

MS NAUERT: Leslie, did you have something else?

QUESTION: Because you keep saying you’re looking into it, I’m trying to figure out, is that – are you talking to the Israelis about their – the way this happened, or – I mean, what kind – are you doing an independent --

MS NAUERT: That’s typically what we do. We talk to other governments, we talk with officials and sources on the ground from different sides, and gather information and facts.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Okay, that’s all I have. Hi, Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. When the United States and North Korea summit talks on May or June, will the North Korea human right issue be raised at the talks?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, typically when we have the opportunity and talk with countries where we have tremendous differences, that is something that does come up. I imagine that that would come up as well. However, denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, which is something that Kim Jong-un said that he is willing to abide by and willing to work toward – I think that is obviously the top conversation. Other things may come up as well.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: On the same topic?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: So Kim Jong-un has said he’s willing to work towards denuclearization, but is the U.S. Government confident that both your definition and his definition match up? Like, does he agree to complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization, or does he have a different definition in mind?

MS NAUERT: I can’t speak for him; I can’t speak for his government. I can --

QUESTION: But can you speak to does the U.S. feel confident that you both mean the same thing when you’re talking about that?

MS NAUERT: And that is something that the President has determined, that – and I can’t speak for the President, but I can say that when they say they are ready to denuclearize and we will have conversations about that, we go into those meetings in good faith, hoping for the very best, and so we look forward to having those conversations.

Okay, Josh. Hi.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. The – on Qatar, the --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: I’ll come back to you, Abbie. Okay.

QUESTION: In the Oval Office this morning, the President had a very different assessment of Qatar’s status on terror funding than he did a year ago. Ironically, his – today seemed to line up more with the secretary of state that he recently fired, and I’m wondering if it’s accurate to say that at this point Qatar has resolved U.S. concerns as expressed by the President last year about funding for terrorism.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So I think a lot of this is a work in progress. They have made some progress, certainly. On March 21st, less than a month ago, they publicly announced designations of 20 terrorist financers and six entities under its new domestic designations authority, so that’s certainly a step in the right direction. We continue to call on all sides of this GCC dispute to come together, to refrain from the type of rhetoric that would make it difficult for them to come together. We have long talked about how this can affect our overall war on terror and efforts in the Middle East, and some of those countries have had to pay a price as a result of their eye being taken off the ball. So we continue to have those conversations with the Qatari Government.

QUESTION: As far as resolving that dispute, basically all sides of this dispute say we’re dug in, there’s been essentially no progress, this isn’t going anywhere. But the President put it very differently today. He said, “We’re working on unity in that part of the Middle East and I think it’s working out very well. There are a lot of good things happening.”

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Are there any examples of good things that are happening as far as resolving the Gulf crisis that you can point to?

MS NAUERT: I wasn’t in those meetings, so I don’t have a full readout of exactly what took place. I can tell you that our Acting Secretary John Sullivan will be meeting with the Qataris later this afternoon in a meeting here at the State Department, so we’ll see what comes out of that. I hope that we’ll be able to provide you a readout.

QUESTION: But the rhetoric has been elevated between Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Both of them are your allies, now they are talking about building a canal that will turn Qatar into an island and so on.

MS NAUERT: I think the rhetoric, if you all remember, is better now than it was last summer. Not where it needs to be, but we’re certainly – I think we’re in a better spot.

QUESTION: I don’t know. I mean, if I look at – look at the Arab press, I think it’s heightening.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m saying some of the projects would be a canal that would cut off Qatar, turn it into an island. I don’t know if you saw this.

MS NAUERT: I’ve certainly seen that – yes, I have – and that would --

QUESTION: So is that something that you would --

MS NAUERT: That would be something that we don’t think benefits the dispute. That only exacerbates the dispute.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: So talk like that, suggestions like that only serves as a setback, and I think we’ve been clear with those countries about that kind of rhetoric. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: In what way have we been clear with the Saudis that we think the embargo should be lifted? Has that – where – when and where has that taken place?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have readouts of any of those meetings right now, but I know that we’ve made those – made that clear.

QUESTION: But we’re confident enough that the Qataris have done enough that I believe the State Department, yesterday or last night, announced an intention to sell advanced weapons --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything --

QUESTION: -- to Qatar?

MS NAUERT: -- for you on that.

QUESTION: Three hundred million dollars in --

MS NAUERT: Okay. I’ll take a look into that. Sorry.

QUESTION: India.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we stay in Asia?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi, a quick question on China and Taiwan. Do you have any information and the timing of the second U.S.-China Diplomatic and Security Dialogue? Separately, are the tensions between --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let me answer your first one first, and I think you’re referring to the dialogue that we had last year, the four-part dialogue with President Xi and other members of his government. I don’t have any meetings, any plans to be able to provide you today about that, so I’ll let you know when we have something to announce.

Okay. Your second part is?

QUESTION: Are the trade tensions between Washington and Beijing have any repercussion on the four annual high-level dialogue between U.S. and China?

MS NAUERT: I don’t think so, and I think the President spoke about this yesterday and then just a short while ago today, talking about how we will continue to have conversations with the Chinese Government, in particular with President Xi. The President not long ago said, “[I’m] very thankful for President Xi of China’s kind words on tariffs and automobile barriers…also, his enlightenment on intellectual property and technology transfers. We will make great progress together.”

So I think what we may be seeing is China coming to terms with some of our concerns about unfair trade practices and the United States saying, “We stand by to engage with you, the Government of China and President Xi, on that matter.”

QUESTION: Do you know what --

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: On Taiwan, today is --

QUESTION: -- the President meant by “enlightenment”?

MS NAUERT: My best estimation of that – and I have not spoken with the President today – but my best estimation of that is basically what came out of President Xi’s speech. And in President Xi’s speech that he gave at the – at a forum recently, he spoke about economic reform, he spoke about market opening. Those are the types of suggestions that China has made for some time, but if they are willing to make progress on that and step in the right direction, we certainly remain open to engaging them.

QUESTION: So – but he believes that President Xi has been enlightened?

MS NAUERT: Possibly.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: He used that word, so – okay.

QUESTION: India?

MS NAUERT: Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Taiwan, what – today --

MS NAUERT: Nike, let me go on to somebody else. Hi.

QUESTION: Just – the same topic. So do you see the risk of the trade war between United States and China has been reduced, if not diminished?

MS NAUERT: I think we’re at a good point where we’re having conversations. We’ve been clear with the Chinese Government areas that are of concern to U.S. workers, U.S. companies, and the overall trade balance. We have had those conversations with them, so I think we’re looking like we’re in a better place.

QUESTION: But the Chinese Government officials actually saying there’s no negotiation going on right now. So I wonder – I’m wondering if you could confirm if there are talks between the two sides about trade issue right now.

MS NAUERT: We have had conversations government to government. As you all know, our Ambassador Branstad was meeting with Chinese officials just about a week or so ago, so those conversations and talks continue.

Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: There have been reports that a team at the CIA has been in communication with North Korea regarding the upcoming summit. My question is what the role of the State Department is in these preparations.

MS NAUERT: I can only confirm that the U.S. Government is engaged in talks with North Korea about our upcoming meeting. I can’t get into the specifics in terms of who is doing that, but this is a broad interagency process.

QUESTION: And then also yesterday, the President extended the timeline to May and early June. Why was the timeline extended?

MS NAUERT: I’d have to refer you to the White House for an answer on that.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Madam --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) North Korea?

QUESTION: -- India?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Hi. Cuba.

QUESTION: Thank you. Can you tell us, in this meeting in Peru, when it is that the U.S. delegation would be meeting with the exile community or the representatives of the exile and civil society from Cuba? Do you have a date?

MS NAUERT: My colleagues over here have my schedule right now, and so I will defer to them. When is Acting Secretary Sullivan set to meet?

MR GREENAN: On Thursday.

MS NAUERT: On Thursday with Venezuelan --

MR GREENAN: With opposition and Cuban NGOs.

MS NAUERT: Thank you, with Cuban NGOs and opposition leaders.

QUESTION: What about Raul Castro?

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: What about any meetings scheduled with Raul Castro or anybody in the --

MS NAUERT: Robert, is there anything on the schedule regarding that?

MR GREENAN: No other officials planned.

MS NAUERT: No, okay.

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. And we’re going to have to wrap it up soon. Hi, Lalit.

QUESTION: India --

QUESTION: Hi.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Thank you. I have one question about a news report appearing in the Pakistani press --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- which says that the U.S. has imposed travel restrictions on Pakistani diplomats based in Washington, D.C. Is that the case?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything for you on that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: Madam --

QUESTION: On Syria?

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Syria?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi, sir.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks a lot.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, tell me your name again.

QUESTION: Sure, Matthew Lee, Inner City Press. I wanted to ask you about Syria.

MS NAUERT: Matt Lee, the other Matt Lee?

QUESTION: Yeah, I know, the other Matt Lee. Matthew Russell Lee.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. So I wanted --

MS NAUERT: Nice to meet you.

QUESTION: All right. I’m glad to be here. I wanted to ask you, this is maybe – I don’t know if it’s in your binder or not, if – two things I wanted to ask. One has to do with Syria’s set to the president of the Conference on Disarmament of the UN.

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm, I saw that.

QUESTION: And Robert Wood, your – yeah, your ambassador said --

MS NAUERT: Ironic, right?

QUESTION: Yeah, highly ironic that they’re un – not qualified. I wanted to know: Do you have any ideas yet what that will mean? Will the U.S. walk out? Will they not participate? And I have one other question for you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I’m certainly aware of that story and that story taking place. That would be an outrage if Syria were to take control of that. We have seen these types of things happen at the United Nations before where suspicious countries, which countries that run against everything that an individual committee should stand for, will then head up that committee. I haven’t spoken to Ambassador Haley about that and what she may or may not do, so I don’t want to get ahead of any decisions she might make.

QUESTION: Sure. And I just – it’s something that I haven’t seen the department comment on. Maybe you’ll have – maybe it’s in your binder, or maybe it isn’t. But there’s been 47 Cameroonians were in Nigeria and they were picked up and sort of illegally returned, or refouled, back to Cameroon. And it’s been – it’s been months that people haven’t seen them. And I’m wondering: Is the U.S. aware of this? Are they aware of this conflict, the conflict or tensions in the Anglophone zones of Cameroon, and what do they intend to do about it?

MS NAUERT: I’ll have to take your question on that and get back with you. And there are things that are not contained in the binder that we are aware of as well. Okay? Okay.

QUESTION: Madam, India, please? India?

MS NAUERT: All right, last question then. India.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, madam. Two questions, please. One, as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned on social and cultural affairs, there are thousands of cases in India at the external affairs ministry and home ministry as far as filed by the battered women by NRIs or non-resident Indians who go from here to marry them and ask for large amount of sum of amount and what they call dowry. And then they promise them to bring them to the U.S., but they abandon them there, and then after that they asking more dowry, then they file for divorce. This is recently one case from New York Supreme Court.

Not – the Indian Government is not doing enough than these women, what they said international woman rights, and also they said that we talk about trafficking or human rights for women, and many of these women did knock the doors of U.S. embassy in Delhi and consulates in India, but they don’t get any response or justice because they have letters in their hand signed by the magistrates and their lawyers, but the U.S. consulates or – what can you do for them? Because somebody should do something for those battered women.

MS NAUERT: I am not familiar with this story. This is the first I’m hearing of it, so let me look into it, find out what the process is. What you’re describing sounds like a terrible situation for those women, but I don’t have the facts on that, so let me see what I can find out for you. Okay?

QUESTION: And these people are U.S. Indian Americans, U.S. citizens or Indian citizens? My --

MS NAUERT: I’ll see --

QUESTION: My second question, please.

MS NAUERT: I will see what I can find out for you on that.

QUESTION: My second question, quickly.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: What they call honest dialogue between U.S. and India --

MS NAUERT: Hey, you all ask multiple questions, too. So give him a break.

QUESTION: Honest dialogue between U.S. and India took place recently, but it was all secret. Anything you can talk about? What is the – what is the future of U.S.-India relations?

MS NAUERT: Well, we have a strong relationship with the Government of India. I think you know that very well. A lot of issues that we have in front of us that we talk about consistently, including Indo-Pacific, free trade, all of that. So I don’t have any specifics for you on anything coming out of meetings, but when I do I’ll let you know. Okay?

QUESTION: Madam, thank you very much.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:38 p.m.)

DPB # 22

Secretary

OPCW

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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 29, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





March 29, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

RUSSIA



RUSSIA/SYRIA



RUSSIA



RUSSIA/SYRIA



RUSSIA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



SOUTH KOREA/NORTH KOREA



CUBA



EGYPT



TURKEY/IRAQ


TRANSCRIPT:

3:06 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi. How are you? Hi, everyone. Good afternoon.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS NAUERT: Welcome back to the State Department. Nice to see you all. Hi, Andrea.

Well, by now you have heard the news that Russia has made the decision to expel 60 of our staff from that country and also close down our consulate in St. Petersburg. A short while ago, I spoke with our U.S. ambassador to Russia, Jon Huntsman, who is serving over there. We spoke by phone, and he shared with me a statement, which I’d like to read with you.

“This evening, Ambassador Jon Huntsman was convoked to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation. The Russian Federation dubbed 60 of our staff persona non grata, and they now must depart within seven days. They also ordered the closure of our consulate in St. Petersburg within 48 hours. It’s clear from the list provided to us that the Russian Federation is not interested in a dialogue on issues that matter to our two countries.”

I spoke with him a short while ago; have also spoken with some of his other colleagues who are serving in Moscow. I let Ambassador Huntsman know that the entire State Department and U.S. Government stands with our people at Mission Russia.

I want to remind you that there is no justification for the Russian response. Our actions were motivated purely by the attack on the United Kingdom, the attack on a British citizen and his daughter. Remember, this is a first time that a weapons-grade nerve agent, Novichok, has been used outside of war on allied soil. We have not taken these steps lightly; we’ve taken these steps in concert with our allies across the world. Twenty-eight countries now join the United States backing our allies in the decision to have kicked out 153 Russian spies from the various countries. Georgia is the latest country that has joined us in this effort. I believe they announced today that they would kick out one spy, which is significant, given that Georgia is in the backyard of Russia.

Our ambassador was called into the Russian foreign ministry this afternoon – excuse me, this evening Moscow time. We’re now reviewing the Russian Government’s note informing us of their response. It appears that Russia has chosen to take the regrettable, unwarranted action to respond to our entirely justified action that I just covered. As I understand it, Russia plans to take the same unjustified actions against 28 other countries, countries that stood in solidarity with the UK. Russia is further isolating itself following the brazen chemical attack. We are still reviewing the details of the Russian action, but let me say, again, that we reserve the right further to any Russian retaliation against the United States.

So we are reading this. We are reviewing it, and we’ll respond accordingly.

We typically go to Matt first. With Matt – be happy to start taking your questions.

QUESTION: Sorry. What was that last bit? You reserve the right to do more is what you said, or you reserve the right --

MS NAUERT: We reserve the right to respond.

QUESTION: To respond to their response?

MS NAUERT: Correct.

QUESTION: So in other words, this is not over; this could – is not necessarily over? We could be – could see an escalation beyond this?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to predict anything that could happen, but we certainly have the ability to do so.

QUESTION: All right. And when you say there is no justification for the Russian response --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- I’m not sure I understand. You guys threw out 60 of their people. When they made you reduce your diplomatic presence last year, you made them reduce your diplomatic --

MS NAUERT: Let me explain why I say there is no justification for that response. The United States, in concert with many other countries, made the decision to kick out Russian spies. We don’t see this as a diplomatic tit-for-tat. Russia is responsible for that horrific attack on the British citizen and his daughter. Once again, they have broken the Chemical Weapons Convention. It was a banned substance that they have used – Novichok. We take this matter very seriously.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: I wanted to let you finish. I thought you were --

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Thank you. That normally doesn’t happen.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Yeah, well, there’s a first time for everything.

MS NAUERT: You caught me off guard. They don’t need to act like a victim. Russia should not be acting like a victim. The only victims in this situation are the two victims in the hospital in the UK right now, and the people who cannot go into the park, the medical workers, the first responders who are now having to be treated and watched carefully because they may have come into contact with that substance.

QUESTION: So are you saying that the American diplomats who are being expelled are not spies under diplomatic cover?

MS NAUERT: I’m saying that they work for the U.S. State Department; they are our colleagues who have served there with great distinction. I can tell you that Russia did provide us a list of 60 names.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: We are reviewing that list and we will respond accordingly.

QUESTION: Right. But you’re saying that these – that your action was justified, theirs wasn’t because these people aren’t the equivalent of who you --

MS NAUERT: Let’s – I think we’re forgetting what got us to this place: their attack. The United States and many other countries chose to respond by kicking out spies.

QUESTION: I --

MS NAUERT: This all begins with Russia’s actions --

QUESTION: I get it.

MS NAUERT: -- their irresponsible actions, where they are showing that they’re not serious about being a cooperative world player.

QUESTION: I get it, but surely you expected them to – this is not a surprise that they would --

MS NAUERT: Look, it doesn’t surprise us.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: It doesn’t surprise us.

QUESTION: All right. And the last one --

MS NAUERT: But it is not justified; I want to be clear about that.

QUESTION: Well --

QUESTION: Hold on. Last one for me.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you think – so you clearly don’t think the number of being thrown out are – is reciprocal, is a reciprocal move. What about the consulate in St. Petersburg? Do you think that the closure of that is the equivalent to your closure of their consulate in Seattle?

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not going to equate one with the other. I can say that Russia is choosing, through its actions, to further diplomatically and also economically isolate itself not just from the United States, from the world. They have indicated that they would kick out other countries’ diplomats who are serving in Russia at this time. Russia clearly is not interested in having good relations with other countries, and that is evident by the actions that they have taken.

Andrea, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Heather, why haven’t we heard from the President of the United States? The last thing we know about his communications with Russia were his congratulatory call to Vladimir Putin, when he did not mention this attack. With this being the largest expulsion that we ordered and now the retaliation --

MS NAUERT: Let me – I have an issue with the premise of your question.

QUESTION: -- since the Cold War.

MS NAUERT: You have only seen the readout, the formal readout that was provided of the call. You do not know the entire content of the call that the President had with Vladimir Putin, so you cannot assume that none of this was, in fact, brought up. In terms of a so-called “congratulatory call,” that is something that we do. That is something that past presidents have done. Even – you may not like a country; you may have difficulties with a country. But that doesn’t mean that you don’t pick up the phone and have a conversation. The reality is, whether we like it or not, we have to have a relationship with a government as large and as significant as Russia.

QUESTION: Well, all of the reporting and the readouts and the White House statements have not questioned the fact that he did not raise the subject of this in that call. Can – are you saying now that he did raise the subject of this attack --

MS NAUERT: I’m not saying that at all. What I’m saying, Andrea, is that what you read in a readout does not always cover everything that was stated in a call. You were not on that call; I was not on that call. So I don't think that you can jump to those conclusions.

QUESTION: Do you think that – isn’t Russia and the rest of the world getting mixed messages about the difference between the President’s stated views of the Kremlin and what the administration has done?

MS NAUERT: I’d say this is a tired storyline. This administration has taken very tough actions against Russia – not against the Russian people but against the Russian Government. And you have seen that through numerous rounds of sanctions; you’ve seen that through our actions that we took earlier this week; you’ve seen that through our actions that we’ve taken at the United Nations, standing together against Russia and its activities in which it still continues to kill and be responsible for killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians who are living in Syria. Our actions have been extremely tough. But the reality is that we still have to maintain some type of contact with these countries.

Hi. Hi, Elise.

QUESTION: Hi. I want to go back to a little bit of the questioning of Matt. Like when you talk about that this action was not justified, because you took these actions because of the Russian – the nerve agent that you said Russia used – I mean, essentially you’re asking Russia to just admit that they did it and take their punishment, right.

MS NAUERT: Wouldn’t that be the adult thing to do?

QUESTION: Well --

MS NAUERT: Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do by the world? You break the Chemical Weapons Convention, you – and that is in place for a reason. That is in place so that countries can be responsible parties and so that they can work together and we can all work together in some sort of peaceful understanding of the kinds of weapons that won’t be used against civilians.

QUESTION: I’m not --

MS NAUERT: Russia broke with that.

QUESTION: I’m not --

MS NAUERT: Russia broke with that, and so a lot of countries made the decision that they needed to be held responsible and that their spies needed to be held responsible and kicked out.

QUESTION: I’m not saying whether they did or they didn’t. I know that there’s evidence suggesting that they did. But they’re saying that they didn’t. So essentially, you’re – again, you’re just asking for that. I mean, by saying that this is your punishment and you should take it and not retaliate, you are, in fact, asking them to admit to something that they say that they didn’t do.

MS NAUERT: And you know what? There’s nothing wrong with admitting wrongdoing. And we’ve seen Russia again and again misinform, use disinformation, claiming that little green men went into Ukraine, denying responsibility for the downing of MH17. We don’t talk about that much anymore, and I’m referring to the plane that was shot down, killing many innocent civilians over Ukraine. Russia is known for its disinformation campaigns, and I think this is just another one.

QUESTION: I’d just like one more on the further measures. Do you anticipate – when you say you’re not going to rule out anything, are you talking about seizing Russian assets? Or are you talking about specifically on the expulsions? Because if – past practice is that in terms of expulsions, you expel a certain amount, you expect them to expel with reciprocity, and then other measures are something separate.

MS NAUERT: I can just tell you that we reserve the right to respond further. We’re reviewing our options.

QUESTION: Including more expulsions?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into specifics about that. This is something that the President, our deputy secretary, General Mattis, others, the entire interagency process can have a conversation about what to do next, and I’m not going to get ahead of any of those conversations that might happen.

Hey, Rich.

QUESTION: Heather, in the U.S. presence – the full U.S. presence in Russia, at least for the next couple of days, how or where does St. Petersburg as a consulate fit in? Is it – as far as the passport volume it controls, the staffing it has there? And how much will its removal from the constellation of the U.S. presence there affect U.S. operations?

MS NAUERT: Well, it’s significant. It’s significant. Our people don’t like to see something like this happen. It is certainly not a good day for our colleagues who are serving at Embassy Moscow and elsewhere in that country. It’s frankly not a good day for the locally employed staff. And when I say that Russia has decided to further isolate itself diplomatically and also economically, that’s what I mean. There will be locally employed staff who very likely will need to be laid off as a result. Those are people who are Russian citizens who work at our complexes and our compounds and who do all kinds of work. Our work at our embassies and our consulates is not possible without the help of those locally employed staff. If Russia is concerned about its economy, it wouldn’t be taking these actions, because those people will be hurt. We saw that happen last year when we had – were forced to draw down some of our colleagues in Russia earlier, and we saw many locally employed staff go – many people who have, frankly, worked for us for sometimes 10, 20, 30 years even.

QUESTION: And as the Russians wanted to close down a consulate and they had several to choose from, the fact that they did choose St. Petersburg, does that – or does the U.S. view that as trying to maximize the effect on the U.S. mission there?

MS NAUERT: I can’t answer that question. You’d have to ask Russia why they chose to select St. Petersburg.

Okay, hi.

QUESTION: Did Deputy Secretary Sullivan speak to someone in Russia, his counterpart Lavrov, or --

MS NAUERT: Well, Ambassador Huntsman did. That’s typically the --

QUESTION: No, nobody in the building speak to or plan to speak --

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Typically what will happen is that a diplomatic note will be given to one of our colleagues. That was provided to Ambassador Huntsman. We are at the point we are still trying to translate that diplomatic note. That – the contents of that – will make its way back to Washington. We will take a look at it, we will review it. This happened not so long ago, so we’re still in the process of gathering the information.

QUESTION: And President Trump last week said he was planning or intended to speak with – to meet with President Putin. It is something still in the plans or --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any meetings to announce. We would certainly like to have a better relationship with Russia, but their actions today don’t indicate that they are very serious about having a better relationship with the United States at this time.

Hi, Carol.

QUESTION: Can I move on to --

QUESTION: No. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Heather, how do you expect this to impact other issues such as the efforts to get Russia to exert pressure on the Assad government in Syria?

MS NAUERT: Well, efforts for Russia to exert pressure on the Assad government – they’re not doing anything to help in Syria. Russia is the huge part of the problem for the tens of thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed and are still being killed each and every day as we look at the video that’s coming out of Eastern Ghouta. Russia is responsible for that. Russia not only sends its people, its military, its weapons down there. You see video; people on the ground point up to the plains and they say there’s another Russian bombardment. We see the barrel bombs coming down. Russia is directly responsible for propping up Bashar al-Assad, who has been killing his own people for far, far too long – Iran also responsible.

We don’t anticipate that Russia is going to – based on their actions – is going to help right now. We’ve seen that they have supported UN Security Council resolutions and they have failed to – even though they supported it at the United Nations, they failed to follow through. And I think you can see that in the ceasefire resolution that was passed unanimously, oh, about a month or so ago. They have never adhered to that ceasefire resolution. We’d like them to stick to the bargain and be an honest broker and be a responsible party to the world.

Okay. Hey, Laurie.

QUESTION: So are you going to take this up at the United Nations, the current --

MS NAUERT: I have not spoken with Ambassador Haley about that. But if I get any information for you, I certainly will bring it to you.

Hi.

QUESTION: Laurie. I wonder if this discussion would be a little less abstract if you could tell us something about the dangers that novichok – novichok poses, like how much is a lethal dose of novichok and is it more dangerous than an older generation of chemical weapons?

MS NAUERT: That is a very interesting question. I am not an expert on how much of a chemical weapon one is needed to become deadly. I’m not an expert on that. That would probably be an intelligence matter. But novichok is contained in the Chemical Weapons Convention. That is one of the banned substances.

QUESTION: But the point is that a very small amount can kill you, and if it were used for terrorism --

MS NAUERT: I’m not an expert at that, but we can certainly see the condition that the British citizen and his daughter ended up in, in serious condition in the hospital. And I think since countries have decided to ban that substance, I think that speaks for itself.

QUESTION: Okay, if I could ask you about Turkey.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Russia?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Hold on, hold on.

QUESTION: I just wanted to kind of --

MS NAUERT: Hi. Hey, Nick.

QUESTION: -- follow up on Rich’s question on the impact of shuttering the St. Pete consulate.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: What, if any, unique services does that consulate provide to Americans?

MS NAUERT: Well, some of the things that our consular facilities provide are visas. So if someone wants to come to the United States, such as a Russian citizen wants to visit a family member in the United States, then they would need to apply for a visa there. They would need to set up an appointment, come into our embassy. When we are forced to close down our facilities, when we are forced to draw down our staff, we have fewer people who can respond to those queries. Our priority has to be, whether it’s there or any other country, dealing with American citizens first. So we will be able to work to assist American citizens. It certainly hampers our ability to do so, but that is always our priority. But certainly visa, and consular operations will be affected by this.

QUESTION: Can I go back to Russia in terms of – you were speaking about Syria and what they’re doing in Syria. The President just said a few minutes ago that the U.S. is coming out of Syria very soon and let other people take care of it, we’re coming out. So, I mean, when he says let other people take care of it, specifically he means the Russians, because they’re really the ones on the ground. And I’m wondering, will this – back to Carol’s question – if this will affect your efforts to come out of Syria if you’re going to leave it to the Russians and you have no relationship with the Russians.

MS NAUERT: I can only say that as a general matter – and I have not seen the President’s comments myself. I don’t – I don’t know the context in which his comments were said. But I can say that, as a general matter, this administration looks to other countries to help out. Far too often, the United States has been the leading country in efforts, whether they be humanitarian efforts or leading fighting efforts to try to help out a country, save a country, or fight a war. So the United States, under this administration, looks for other parties to do more. But that’s just as a general matter, and I can’t comment beyond that.

QUESTION: But, like, Russia is the – as you know, the main party on the ground there. And when you say leave it to other people, that’s specifically --

MS NAUERT: Elise, I can’t comment on what the President supposedly said. I haven’t seen it. I’d have to refer you back to the White House.

QUESTION: Well, he didn’t – he didn’t supposedly say it.

MS NAUERT: Well, I have not seen it myself, okay?

QUESTION: He said it.

MS NAUERT: I have not seen that myself.

QUESTION: Okay, but so you --

MS NAUERT: And you don’t necessarily comment or report on things that have been heard secondhand, and I’m not going to do that either.

QUESTION: That’s – okay, that’s fine. So you’re not aware of any policy determination to pull all – to pull the U.S. out of Syria?

MS NAUERT: I am not, no. No.

QUESTION: Okay. So the President is just speaking off the cuff and making up policy as he goes along without telling --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. I don’t know. I’d have to refer you back to the White House. I’m not aware of those comments.

QUESTION: It’s not just the Russians who are big in Syria; it’s also the Iranians.

MS NAUERT: That is correct.

QUESTION: And if you guys are going to pull out and just leave it to other people, Russia and Iran are going to go in there. I’m just wondering, have you spoken to the Israelis about this? Because I don’t think they’d like it. The --

MS NAUERT: Matt, I’m not prepared to comment on what was supposedly said because I have not heard it myself. I’d refer you back to the White House for more information.

QUESTION: Can I go back to just the embassy – the diplomats issue for a second?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I’m still a little bit mystified as to how you can – how you were – why you were able to say yesterday and – or maintain yesterday that the United States is safer because these 60 Russians are now out. Am I correct in presuming that because you’re saying that these American diplomats who are being expelled from Russia are not the same, don’t fall into the same category as the 60 Russians, that it would be inaccurate – wrong – for the Russians to claim that Russians are safer or will be safer without --

MS NAUERT: They claim all kinds of unusual things that we don’t agree with. They are the masters of propaganda. I think you very well know that. To the question of kicking out --

QUESTION: I think the North Koreans are the masters.

MS NAUERT: -- kicking out – well, they are too. Kicking out spies – I would argue that our country is safer, and I think many of you who cover our elections process, and many American and Western reporters would argue too, that the United States is better off with fewer Russian spies.

QUESTION: Okay. And then last thing is the – are – you mentioned 28 countries have taken action and --

MS NAUERT: That’s right. Plus the United States, so 29 in total.

QUESTION: Are there countries that you asked or would have liked to have seen take action that didn’t, that you’re disappointed in?

MS NAUERT: I would say this appears to be a rolling effort. Georgia is the latest country that got on just today. Other countries may join this effort in recognizing the awful actions that Russia took against these two individuals.

QUESTION: Right. But this appears to go beyond NATO and the EU, the number of countries --

MS NAUERT: Australia, also Canada.

QUESTION: Right, exactly. So have you sought, like, the Japanese, the South Koreans, the Israelis?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware – I am not aware --

QUESTION: None of them have done anything.

MS NAUERT: I am not aware of all the phone calls or the contacts that we have had on this campaign, if you will. I know the British Government has been very engaged. They’ve been talking with people as well. This is a global effort. Other countries may be having conversations with countries that we’re simply not aware of.

QUESTION: Heather, can we move on, please --

QUESTION: No.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: No, not yet, please.

MS NAUERT: And then we’ll take your question after that. We’ll give Andrea one last one.

QUESTION: I have one more.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: You spoke about Syria. There are other – clearly other U.S.-Russian issues in play here: arms control, as well as North Korea and our efforts there. How might this escalation affect our relationship, our ability to work with Russia on other key issues, bilateral issues?

MS NAUERT: I would look at it from another point of view: Russia’s decisions – Russia is making the very clear decision that it appears not to be interested in working with many countries around the world. I think we have to look at their actions and the actions that they are taking. And pushing countries – pushing countries aside, that is why I say that Russia has clearly making – made the decision to diplomatically isolate itself. They’ve done that from the UK, they’ve done that from Germany, they’ve done that from France, Lithuania, Estonia – I can go on and on about the number of countries that it has chosen to distance itself from.

QUESTION: And --

MS NAUERT: And I’m going to move on. I think we’ve covered enough on that.

QUESTION: And --

MS NAUERT: Said, go right ahead.

QUESTION: I have a very quick question on the Palestinian issue. Yesterday, Ambassador Friedman told Channel 10 – the Israeli Channel 10 that if Abbas does not come to negotiate with us, someone else will, the successor will. Is there – are there any plans to let’s say have regime change in the Palestinian Authority?

MS NAUERT: Absolutely not, absolutely not. And I think the ambassador was clear in his remarks. He put out a tweet this morning, if I could try to find it here. He says he was misquoted in various reports, stemming from an interview that was published today. The United States is not seeking to replace Mahmoud Abbas. It is for the Palestinian people to choose its leadership, so I think he was clear in his response to that.

QUESTION: But why not? I mean, you guys aid the Palestinian Authority; it seems that the Palestinian leadership has not been able to sort of deliver on –

MS NAUERT: That is up for --

QUESTION: many things for the Palestinians.

MS NAUERT: That is up for the Palestinian people to decide.

QUESTION: Right, and one other question: tomorrow there are going to be marches that are called the return marches to celebrate land day. And the Israelis deployed some like hundred snipers around Gaza; there is likely to be a bloodbath. Are you calling on the Israelis to refrain from the use of excessive force --

MS NAUERT: I would --

QUESTION: -- in the case that the --

MS NAUERT: I would call on you to not use that kind of language, Said.

QUESTION: What language?

MS NAUERT: That language, it sounds like you’re calling for that yourself. Look --

QUESTION: I’m not calling for that myself.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I’m saying that people are maybe – maybe – maybe marching in the tens of thousands. The Israelis are saying that they have deployed – I’m not saying that, they’re saying – that they have deployed snipers and so on. This is likely to result in bloodshed. Do you call on them to refrain from using excessive force? Are you not --

MS NAUERT: I certainly hope you’re wrong.

QUESTION: I hope I’m wrong. Of course, I --

MS NAUERT: We don’t like to hear excessive language in conjunction with an area that is so sensitive.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: Israel has certainly put on heightened security alerts as a result. We hope the measures that they choose to take, and to be implemented, will minimize the impact on the ability of people to cross in and out of Gaza, for example. Overall, we believe that Israel has the right to defend itself, but we recognize that people have a right to be out and be out in the fashion that you had mentioned.

QUESTION: Just --

QUESTION: And --

MS NAUERT: But we – but we hope thing remain calm.

QUESTION: Just a quick --

MS NAUERT: Hold on.

QUESTION: And lastly, please. And lastly, there are about 1,500 Christians in Gaza.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Some of them would like to go to the Church of Holy Sepulchre. The Israelis have denied them that. Would you call on Israel to allow Gaza Christians to go and celebrate the – Easter?

MS NAUERT: I would just say that we hope that they will do this and they will implement this in a way that would minimize impact, and will allow people to go where they need to go to to celebrate religious holidays.

QUESTION: I have a question on this march. Do you see it, as the Israelis do, that this is a call by Hamas to incite to violence?

MS NAUERT: I --

QUESTION: Because that’s what the Israelis are – the message that they’re putting out is that they feel that Hamas is inciting to violence and spending a lot of money on this campaign.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I would just refer you back to the Government of Israel. I don’t have any information on that.

QUESTION: Well I mean, but how do you view this march?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any additional information on that beyond I – I’m aware that it’s happening. Yeah, okay.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Go ahead. Hey. Alicia.

QUESTION: Hi. A date for the summit between North and South Korea has been announced for April 27th. What are your expectations? Are you hopeful that this can set the stage for a successful meeting between President Trump and Kim Jong-un?  

MS NAUERT: It seems like that was announced weeks ago, doesn’t it? And it was only this morning – how quickly the news moves, certainly. I think that meeting, overall, that was announced between – between the Republic of Korea and North Korea – just moves us closer to the point where the United States can sit down with North Korea and have a meeting. We’re realistic about that overall. The State Department is planning for that meeting. We’re going ahead in full faith and good faith. We’ve had lots of conversations with the Republic of Korea about the contents of that meeting and the contents of their discussion, and we believe overall that the pressure campaign is working. It’s one that I’ve talked about so many times up here, and we’re proud of that pressure campaign. And so many countries joining the United States in recognizing the destabilizing elements within North Korean – the North Korean regime, in terms of its ballistic missile and nuclear testing. Okay.

QUESTION: And uh --

MS NAUERT: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Just sorry, Heather. One more follow up on that. This --

MS NAUERT: Let me just move on to her, and I’ll come back to you if I have time.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Sir, sorry. (Inaudible.)

QUESTION: Still on North Korea. The North Koreans have said that they’re committed to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula if South Korea and the United States respond to their efforts with good will and create an atmosphere of peace and stability. How do you assess that statement? The Japanese Government has expressed skepticism about their true intentions there, so what is the U.S. perspective?

MS NAUERT: And certainly, I understand the feeling on the part of the Japanese Government. They were here about a week and a half, two weeks ago, and sat down with Deputy Secretary Sullivan and shared their concerns. I can tell you we are strong allies, we are on the same page working with Japan, just as we are with South Korea, on these issues of mutual concern – chiefly, their country’s security and the security of the region.

I understand their skepticism. We are being realistic too about this meeting. But that doesn’t mean that we won’t go ahead and plan a meeting to have these conversations about the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

QUESTION: Heather – Heather, I have --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Janne, hi.

QUESTION: A related question?

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Heather. Recently, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has mentioned that he wants a conditional denuclearization in Korean Peninsula. I think there is a difference between the CVID that U.S. want. What is the U.S. prospect of the denuclearization talks? Because they liked the conditional denuclearization talks.

MS NAUERT: North Korea has stated to South Korea, certainly, and to China that it is committed to denuclearization. We are going to or we are planning – we are planning to go ahead with meetings to have conversations with them about that. At this point, we will go forward with those and hope that they are serious about that.

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. And then we’re going to have to wrap it up.

QUESTION: Do you go to those discussions ready to some concessions, as any negotiation will --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get ahead of any meetings that take place. Some of these would be established, some of those guidelines would be established at a much higher level.

QUESTION: I have a --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yeah. Go right ahead. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi. President Trump just said in Ohio that he may hold up the Korea Free Trade Agreement until a deal is reached with North Korea. Is that a possibility? Has the State Department been informed?

MS NAUERT: Well, the KORUS agreement, the Korea Free Trade Agreement, is something – it’s funny because there were a lot of countries that worried that we were pulling out of everything. I mean, this is an agreement that the President and others working for the administration have been working on. We believe that this will be a – better for American workers and for the U.S. economy, but this is not a done deal. There is still – it’s not a final agreement. I have not heard what the President said about that, so I don’t want to comment beyond the fact that we are renegotiating. We can renegotiate with other countries and end up stronger as a result of those negotiations, but it’s still not a done deal just yet.

QUESTION: But just on that point --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: Just on that point, I know you don’t want to speak to what the President might have just said, but do you see this agreement as conditional as to whether there’s an agreement with North Korea?

MS NAUERT: I would refer you to the White House. If there’s something that the President just said about that, I’d have to refer you to the White House on that.

QUESTION: No, I’m not talking about what the President said --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but, like, is it your understanding that this agreement is conditional upon whether there’s an --

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that this agreement has not been finalized just yet. Okay?

QUESTION: Yeah, but what he said was that he would hold it up, delay it, use it as leverage with the North Korean agreement. This is the second thing that we’ve asked you about that the President spoke to today that you don’t seem to know anything about, which suggests that the President is just kind of, I don’t know, just throwing stuff out that --

MS NAUERT: Do I need to remind you again that I work at, what is it, 2205 C Street?

QUESTION: 2201.

QUESTION: No, but the administration --

MS NAUERT: I don’t work at six – 2201. See, I’m still learning the address.

QUESTION: This is (inaudible) policy.

QUESTION: But this is a – these are policy questions.

MS NAUERT: But – yeah.

QUESTION: It’s about policy.

QUESTION: Either you’re pulling out of Syria or you’re not. Either you’re going to hold up the KORUS agreement for a deal with North Korea or you’re not, and the State Department --

MS NAUERT: KORUS deal has not been finalized just yet. We are in the process of renegotiating that. As a whole --

QUESTION: I get that, but it – but I don’t remember anyone ever --

MS NAUERT: Hold on. As a whole, this administration looks for more countries to join us in our efforts so the United States isn’t consistently carrying the heavy load. We will always continue to be a leader on these matters diplomatically, militarily, but we look for others to join us. Okay?

QUESTION: I get it, but --

MS NAUERT: Beyond that, I’m not going to comment --

QUESTION: But – I get it, but --

MS NAUERT: -- on anything that the President supposedly just said.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: -- there has been no discussion at all anywhere else that I’m aware of – maybe I’m wrong – but that I’m aware of that the free trade agreement with South Korea is somehow linked to a denuclearization agreement with North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Look, part of that is being handled out of the U.S. Trade Representative’s office. If you want any more details on the trade agreement, I can refer you to his office.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS NAUERT: And we’re going to – and I’m going to have to leave it at that. Okay?

QUESTION: Turkey? Turkey?

QUESTION: Cuba, can I (inaudible)?

MS NAUERT: Go ahead. Miss, hi.

QUESTION: What’s the status of the investigation into the alleged attacks on U.S. diplomats in Cuba?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, welcome. This is your first time here, right?

QUESTION: It is.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather.

MS NAUERT: You’re welcome back anytime you like. So Cuba, last time that we had talked about it – and it’s been a while since it’s come up here in the briefing – just for an update on the investigation, we – the investigation is still ongoing. The State Department is involved in that, as are other government agencies and departments as well. It is still an ongoing investigation. The United States Government is still not sure who or what is responsible for those health attacks on 24 of our embassy personnel who were based down at our embassy in Cuba. The investigation continues. It’s not something that we’re giving up on.

The decision was made late last year to bring home some of our people. We are operating at a reduced staffing rate. We still are. It is considered an unaccompanied post. That means that we don’t allow spouses down there, children down there. The reason being for these personnel changes which went into effect last year is that we can’t necessarily ensure people’s safety when we don’t know what is responsible for attacking our people.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: There’s evidence now that there is – there was brain damage. There’s medical evidence of brain damage done on the U.S. diplomats. Have any measures been taken to protect U.S. embassy employees around the world, not only in Cuba but around the world?

MS NAUERT: I can tell you if anyone feels – and we’ve been very public about this. If any of our colleagues around the world feel that there has been something suspicious that has taken place, if they are noticing some unusual symptoms, they have been encouraged – and we’ve made this clear – to contact the State Department and talk with our MED department and talk with their supervisors and make us aware of this.

We have provided medical services through different medical facilities in the United States on the mainland for our people who felt like they were affected. They are receiving treatment; they’re meeting with doctors, undergoing various levels of testing. And at any point, if someone feels like they are experiencing some symptoms that are similar to the symptoms that others affected have experienced, they can then go in for testing. But beyond that, I’m not going to discuss the specifics of what our people went through.

QUESTION: May I follow – just –

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you just tell me if that includes protection from a possible electromagnetic --

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: -- or radio waves?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. Your question is?

QUESTION: Does that include protection from a possible electromagnetic or radio wave weapon of sorts?

MS NAUERT: When we don’t know what or who is responsible for it, it is difficult to do anything to take action to prevent from – prevent an attack from something you don’t know where it is coming from. So that’s virtually impossible to do, and I hope people would understand that.

QUESTION: May I follow on that? May I follow on that?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: When you don’t know yet who or what may have happened, would that rule out reinstating Cuba on the terror list?

MS NAUERT: I’m not --

QUESTION: And is that under consideration?

MS NAUERT: I have not asked our people that lately. This is not a topic we have --

QUESTION: Is that under consideration?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. I can look into that and see if I can get something for you on that. However, it is something that I may not be able to answer because some of these might be diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: The Egyptian --

QUESTION: Turkey. Turkey --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Oh, Said. Whoa, guys. Settle.

QUESTION: The Egyptian election? Quick comment on the Egyptian election?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s see. Today was the last day of the Egyptian election.

QUESTION: Yesterday was, I think.

MS NAUERT: No, today was. Three days, right? I think it was three days.

QUESTION: Yesterday was the last day --

MS NAUERT: The election won’t be certified until next week, so we will be sure to have a more fulsome statement for you on that next week.

QUESTION: Could you clarify the situation in Sinjar? The PKK says it’s left. Turkey is still making threats. What’s the situation there, as far as you know?

MS NAUERT: Right. We’ve certainly seen reports that there are those groups in Sinjar. And many of us will remember Sinjar from the Yezidis, the Yezidis who were there who then had to be rescued, some of them, and some of them were brutally murdered by ISIS. We’ve seen the reports of those groups in Sinjar. We understand that Turkey has expressed some of its concern over the presence of them in northern Iraq. Sinjar and the United States expect that any operations in Iraq would be done with the approval of the Iraqi Government. So if Turkey is coming into Sinjar, they need to coordinate that with the Government of Iraq.

QUESTION: Do you know if the PKK has left?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: I’ve got to leave it there. I’ve got to leave it there. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:41 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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 6, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





March 6, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



ESTONIA/LATVIA/LITHUANIA



IRAN



SYRIA



SOUTH KOREA/NORTH KOREA



IRAQ



POLAND



VENEZUELA



TURKEY



TURKEY/SYRIA



CUBA



LATVIA



RUSSIA



UK/RUSSIA


TRANSCRIPT:

3:11 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Hi, everyone.

QUESTION: Hi.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS NAUERT: Hope you’re all well. Hi. Good to see you. I’ll start out with a few announcements today. I don’t know if any of you caught the Secretary’s speech at George Mason University, but as a preview to his trip to Africa in which he leaves today.

Today Secretary Tillerson announced 533 million in additional humanitarian assistance for the people of Ethiopia, Somalia, South Sudan, and Nigeria, as well as countries in the Lake Chad region, where millions of people are facing life-threatening food insecurity and malnutrition as a result of ongoing conflict and prolonged drought. With the new funding, the United States is providing life-saving assistance, including emergency food and health care. The United States is the single-largest donor of humanitarian assistance for these crises. We encourage others to increase their share of funding to meet the growing urgent needs. And as the Secretary underscored in his remarks earlier today, there is an effort to overall break the cycle, meaning providing opportunities for all people in the African continent, both humanitarian and also enabling them to engage economically, and our work with governments there.

Secondly, the Secretary yesterday had a really terrific meeting with the Estonians, the Latvians, and the Lithuanians. Sir, you’re from Lithuania, right?

QUESTION: Latvia.

MS NAUERT: Latvia. Pardon me. Okay. Well, your folks were there as well, and we were certainly happy to host them here at the State Department. I’d like to provide you with a readout from that meeting.

Secretary Tillerson engaged in counter – his counterparts from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania in a productive discussion Monday. The four NATO allies agreed to deepen their cooperation to combat Russia’s disinformation efforts and malicious cyber activity. They discussed strategies to address the threat Russia poses to European security and Russia’s lack of respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of its neighbors. They also made preparations for the Baltic Summit that President Trump will host in Washington that is in April, as well as the NATO Summit later this year in July.

In addition to that, I’d like to turn to Iran right now, where we are saddened to hear that yet another prisoner of conscience has passed away while in custody. It’s being reported that Mohammad Raji, a member of the Gonabadi dervish community, passed away while being interrogated in custody in Iran. We also continue to receive disturbing reports of the Iranian regime’s ongoing forceful crackdown on the Gonabadi dervish community across the country, in which hundreds have been reported arrested and some have been hospitalized. We call on the Iranian regime to respect the rights of its citizens and to release all prisoners of conscience who are unjustly imprisoned.

And lastly, an update to bring you on the situation in Syria, particularly Eastern Ghouta. Brutal airstrikes by Russia and the regime continue, especially in Eastern Ghouta, despite the unanimous UN Security Council vote on February 24th to demand an immediate cessation of hostilities throughout Syria. The strikes on Eastern Ghouta in recent days have demonstrated the farcical nature of Russia’s proposed humanitarian corridor. Russia is clearly attempting to feign implementation of UNSCR 2401 while showing complete disregard for the ongoing humanitarian disaster that still unfolds.

There have been no meaningful pause – there has been no meaningful pause in the slaughter in Eastern Ghouta. Bombs and artillery are still falling on civilians and medical facilities in the Damascus suburbs. The long-delayed and insufficient aid finally allowed in yesterday was reported to have been looted by regime forces and stripped of emergency medical supplies that are so desperately needed there.

Russia’s unwillingness to adhere to its numerous commitments was fully demonstrated again by the fact that trucks carrying much needed aid were forced to withdraw from the area due to pro-regime attacks which killed dozens of innocent civilians. And let me remind you, this was backed by Russia.

Russia has agreed to unhindered humanitarian access in numerous UN Security Council resolutions, including UNSCRs 2165, 2254, and 2401; yet humanitarian convoys have been chronically delayed or barred by the Syrian regime, and those that do get through are wholly insufficient to meet the needs of the Syrian people.

Russia has not only failed to follow through on delivering regime adherence, but it continues to conduct airstrikes in Ghouta with its own air force. Russia and Assad regime continues to ignore the terms of multiple UN Security Council resolutions. Russia repeatedly delayed the adoption of the resolution, and it’s pretty clear now why they were reluctant to vote for it: They had no intention of following it.

Let me repeat what the White House said over the weekend: The Assad regime along with its backers in Moscow and Tehran should adhere to UNSCR 2401, should cease hostilities, and allow unfettered humanitarian access, in particular in Eastern Ghouta, where nearly 400,000 innocent civilians are in critical need.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS NAUERT: Hi. Hey, Matt.

QUESTION: I’m sure we’ll get back to Russia and Syria, but I want to start with Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: And the announcement by the South Koreans that I’m sure you’re aware of that the North Koreans are apparently willing to talk. I know the White House has kind of taken the lead on this. I’m just wondering what the State Department’s role in any such talks will be. Are you involved, or is this something that has bypassed this building?

MS NAUERT: Sure. So first I can say we are closely coordinated with the Republic of Korea on efforts, conversations, and everyday activities that affect our country and theirs as significant allies. The State Department has been speaking with the White House about the proposed upcoming meeting later this week. We’ve been in constant communication with the White House on this.

In terms of the meeting with South Korea and also with the DPRK, we don’t have a play-by-play of that just yet. We will wait for the Republic of Korea to come to Washington and to be able to brief us on those meetings.

As you can well imagine, any phone call that takes place from Pyongyang to Washington, D.C., would have a lot of ears listening to that, so we prefer to have those conversations in person in a secure environment.

We look forward to meeting with our South Korean allies when they do come to Washington to get a full brief on that conversation.

QUESTION: So you’re saying that you’re not interested, or the administration’s not interested in a telephonic conversation? Any conversation that you would have with the North Koreans would have to be done in person?

MS NAUERT: No, Matt, you’ve completely misunderstood what I said.

QUESTION: Oh, okay. All right.

MS NAUERT: What I said was --

QUESTION: Did anyone else misunderstand that? (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: What I said was, as you were asking about our conversations --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- coming out of this meeting, and our understanding is that the South Koreans are still in North Korea at this point.

QUESTION: Oh, I see.

MS NAUERT: We aren’t going to get a readout of that meeting --

QUESTION: Gotcha.

MS NAUERT: -- from the South Koreans while they are in Pyongyang. We look forward to having them come to Washington, where they can fully brief us in person in a secure environment on all the details of that meeting.

QUESTION: Right, okay. Sorry, I did misunderstand that. Well, the Secretary, as you mentioned, is going to be leaving and will be in Africa. So clearly, he wouldn’t be able to be involved in such a conversation unless it was by secure video or something like that. Is he planning to be --

MS NAUERT: As we determine who will be coming to the United States from the Republic of Korea, I think the White House will then assemble a list of people who would be appropriate to invite. Obviously, if the Secretary were here in Washington, I think that would be at the top of the President’s list; however, the Secretary will be in Africa at this point.

As you all know, there’s a lot of protocol that’s involved in putting together these meetings. Officials oftentimes like to be matched. The certain numbers of people from the United States, from South Korea is typically matched. So we’ll look for the White House for an actual invitation list and to learn more about who will be attending that meeting.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, one person who would be an obvious choice would be the special representative or special envoy for North Korea. How is the – and you don’t have one at the moment. That’s vacant. How is the search for his replacement going, and is it possible that person could be selected in time for whatever meetings?

MS NAUERT: Matt, you well know that we have plenty of experts in this building, led by Susan Thornton, led by Marc Knapper, led by our other colleagues, Mark Lambert, who is an expert on North Korea. We have plenty of people who are more than qualified to have these types of conversations with the White House and also the Republic of Korea, our ally. So when the White House decides to determine who will be invited to this meeting and who will be represented on the South Korean side, we will look forward to providing our best complement of people to address that.

QUESTION: You know that there is a person, a currently serving senior diplomat, who used to do this job. And I don’t know if he would do it again, but he’s currently the ambassador in Thailand. Is there any thought given to him?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I – if you want to join our White House PPO team and help find people to join this administration and the State Department, you sound like you know a lot about that, so I could certainly put forward your name. Okay.

QUESTION: For the envoy position? (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: I can put forward your name for the envoy position or if you want to come work for the State Department in recruiting.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Go ahead. Hi, Michele.

QUESTION: What is the State Department’s take on the language that came from North Korea on this subject via South Korea? They actually used the word “denuclearization,” talking about if security could be assured and if the threat was removed to North Korea. So what’s your assessment of that language that’s coming out?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I think what we’re going to do, we’re not going to parse that language. There were obviously meetings that just took place in Pyongyang. We will sit down with the Koreans; we’ll have a conversation about what next steps we want to take. I mean, I certainly think that this is a step in the right direction. The President addressed this a short while ago. Many people didn’t think that this day would come where we would be at this point. The President tweeted about this earlier today when the President said that possible progress is being made in talks with North Korea. For the first time in many years, a serious effort is being made by all parties concerned. The President was realistic but also recognizing that we are at, I think, what is a fairly good point when we are having conversations with our allies about the next steps. But I’m not going to characterize everything that the – that North Korea said.

QUESTION: Well – okay. But just a few weeks ago you were characterizing the fact that South Korea and North Korea were starting to talk, and you expressed skepticism on the part of the State Department.

MS NAUERT: Well, and I think the President did too in his tweet earlier today, where we have – obviously recognize that talks have not gone as well as we would like – have liked them in the past, where North Korea has pulled back on promises that it has made in the past. So that’s why I say I think the President is appropriately realistic in this. But I don’t want to box in the White House, the State Department, or any other government entity of ours in going into these conversations. We want the United States and South Korea to be able to have full conversations about the next steps.

QUESTION: Why – I mean, the State Department – it seems like on virtually everything to do with North Korea and a number of other matters, it’s always a referral to the White House, or it’s quoting the President’s tweet, or the Secretary himself says you’re going to have to ask the White House about that. Why is there no --

MS NAUERT: I – Michele, I disagree with that assertion completely. If you look at the amount of time that – out of the State Department that we have talked about the issue with North Korea, it is probably about 70 percent of our time has been spent on North Korea. The Secretary – and I’ve witnessed this on many occasions – this is his top issue that he will bring up with not just our allies, our partners, other countries all around the world. The Secretary has spent a tremendous amount of time on trying to handle the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and pushing that forward as a part of our maximum pressure campaign. The White House – of course, an important part of it – the White House will be hosting this meeting, and we look forward to being a part of that.

I’ll move on. Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. North Korea demands compensation for the nuclear freeze. Would the United States compensation for that, or --

MS NAUERT: I’m not familiar with that, but no, I can’t imagine that we would be.

QUESTION: But the U.S. --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything for you on that. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. But the other one.

MS NAUERT: Let me get to somebody else, because we’re going to stick to North Korea --

QUESTION: One more. One more, please.

MS NAUERT: -- and then I’m going to go to another issue. Sir, do you have a question about North Korea? No? Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. The DPRK just said that it will freeze all the weapon testings before the summit next month. So I’m just wondering that is the South Korean officials had just contacted the U.S. side to say that probably we could consider freeze the military drill that is just scheduled this month. Is there any contact or they just assess something about that to the U.S.?

MS NAUERT: I can tell you that our principle and our policy of denuclearization and working toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has not changed. It’s something that we share with Japan, with South Korea, and many other countries in terms of getting in conversations about what will come out of our meeting with the Republic of Korea. I’m not going to get ahead of those conversations, okay. Let’s let them play out.

Laurie. You want to talk about Iraq?

QUESTION: How’d you guess? (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: Well, sometimes you ask me other questions.

QUESTION: It’s about Iraq.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: The Iraqi budget that the parliament just passed drastically cut the share for the Kurdistan region. And the Kurdistan regional leadership is very disappointed, and it’s even disappointed in the United States. It says you said you do the right things, but nothing happens. It says you want – you say you want a strong Kurdistan region. How would you define a strong Kurdistan region?

MS NAUERT: Laurie, I think some of these issues – and we cover them a lot – that Kurdistan and the Government of Iraq and Baghdad have to work together. We have a lot of areas that you and I have spoken about in the past where they still have not come to an agreement. That is important. You recognize that; the folks in Baghdad certainly recognize that as well, as do we. We have a good relationship with the Kurds and also with the Iraqi Government. We encourage them to work out their issues.

In terms of the overall budget that was passed over the weekend, that would largely be an internal Iraqi matter, which we would not weigh in on, but we have clearly demonstrated our support for the Government of Iraq and specifically for the Kurds as well. That’s an important ally of ours, as you know. Or partner of ours, I should say.

QUESTION: Maybe – if I might suggest this --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: You need to take a page out of the President’s playbook. He called for tariffs and says that trade wars, easy to win, and everyone goes, “Oh, horrors,” but then it turns out that maybe this is a bargaining position, and he is creating leverage. Maybe you need more leverage with Baghdad, because it seems that Baghdad is the one who is not ready to compromise with the Kurds.

MS NAUERT: I think the Kurds and Baghdad both need to do more to get it – to have these conversations and resolve some of these issues.

QUESTION: And you’re not looking for ways to create more leverage?

MS NAUERT: Look, we look for opportunities to have these conversations and help facilitate these conversations. I think our position is well known, okay.

QUESTION: Poland?

MS NAUERT: Hi, Dave.

QUESTION: Hi. The Polish press is reporting that Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell has informed their government that they will have no meetings with the prime minister and the president of Poland until they have reformed their Holocaust law. Are you able to confirm this conversation took place? And if not, could you just generally characterize what the U.S. Government’s position is on Poland’s recent Holocaust law?

MS NAUERT: Certainly. We have very clearly – and we have one of our Polish friends in the back here. Marcin, great to see you as well, always. We have clearly articulated our concerns with that legislation. Statements from Secretary Tillerson, statements from me, information that we have put out from our European Bureau as well. We also had a video message that went out from our ambassador, Ambassador Jones, on this matter.

The reports that allege any kind of a suspension in security cooperation or high-level dialogue – all of that is simple false. NATO – excuse me – Poland is a close NATO ally. That will remain; that hasn’t changed. That does not mean that we don’t have disagreements about the legislation that has taken effect. We have made our position on that very well known. We believe that being able to have full and honest conversations – we believe in being able to have the media report in a free manner, even in a way that countries may not agree with. That is important. That is how people learn from things of the past. And so we would encourage the government to listen carefully to our positions that we have clearly stated.

QUESTION: But on the specific issue of can the president of Poland meet the President of the United States before this is --

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of any meetings that are being discussed or scheduled at that time. But I can tell you there has been --

QUESTION: Imagine they’ll both be at the NATO Summit.

MS NAUERT: There has been – the NATO Summit in July? Yeah. Oh, nothing’s been announced on the NATO Summit in July. A lot of things can happen, certainly, between now and then. But we are not going to abandon our security commitment to Poland. Poland is a close NATO ally. But I want to be clear that we have concerns about that legislation and we have made our concerns very clear.

Marcin, go ahead.

QUESTION: Heather, so I understand, that the conversations are ongoing between Warsaw and Washington?

MS NAUERT: As far as I know, yeah, certainly, that our ambassador has been deeply engaged in this. I just spent quite a bit of time with our Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell yesterday. We did not talk about the Poland matter. We were talking about our friends from Latvia and Estonia and Lithuania as well. But I can certainly go back and ask. If I have anything new, I’d be happy to bring it to you. Okay.

QUESTION: Is there a – is it possible that there were just suggestions from the U.S. side, from the State Department, that there may be a problem with such high diplomatic meetings?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to speculate, but I’ll just tell you we’ve made our concerns clear. But our security posture, as it pertains to our ally, Poland, is not changing. People are trying to find distance or space between our longstanding relationship, and there is no space there, okay?

QUESTION: So the foreign minister of Poland is welcome at the State Department?

MS NAUERT: I have no meetings or no plans that I can – I am able to announce at this time from this position, okay? Okay.

QUESTION: Sorry. You just said there is no distance or no space --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but there is.

MS NAUERT: Well, on this matter. On the matter, and we’ve made our disagreements or our disappointment with that legislation clear.

QUESTION: All right. When you talk to Wess Mitchell about it, can you ask him what he thinks that he could have said that could have given the Poles the impression that they were being – I don’t know –

QUESTION: Shunned.

QUESTION: -- shunned or would be shunned by --

MS NAUERT: I will see what I can find out. No guarantees, okay?

QUESTION: -- by the President, Vice President. Okay. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: Heather, when we last gathered, the Venezuelan Government had announced that it had moved its election back one month. Does that change the administration’s calculus at all on its next steps on how to (a) deal with the crisis and (b) deal with the government there?

MS NAUERT: I – look, just moving an election, which we don’t consider to be a fully fair and democratic election, because we’ve seen the hand of the Maduro regime; we have seen the repeated elections that have had – where the regime has pushed people to vote a certain way, provided monetary encouragement to vote a certain way. Just pushing back the election doesn’t make it any more free, doesn’t make it any more fair. Our concerns still remain about the erosion of democracy in that country.

QUESTION: And the refugee crisis ongoing there, was that something that the Secretary discussed when he was in the region last month?

MS NAUERT: I would ask you to ask him that question, because you were there. You were tagging along with him. But that is an issue that always comes up with many of our – the countries in the Western Hemisphere. It’s an issue of concern between the United States and Colombia, as Colombia has seen more and more Venezuelans cross their border because they’re in need of food and medical supplies. We’ve seen terrible stories about children who’ve been abandoned on the streets because their parents feel that they are not able to care for them or feed them. This is a tremendous concern of ours, the humanitarian situation. We’re continuing to watch it and we’re engaging closely.

QUESTION: And considering any other further assistance or anything to that government – Colombian Government to help with the Venezuelan crisis?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have – I don’t have anything specific to provide you with regard to Colombia right now.

Okay, hi.

QUESTION: On U.S. embassy in Ankara.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Is there any update on the security – the closure? And the Turkish police arrested four Iraqi nationals as – after the closing the embassy, saying that was the security threat. Can you confirm was that the security threat?

MS NAUERT: So some of the security issues with – particular to this investigation I’m not going to be able to address. I’d have to refer you back to the Turkish Government on that and their police forces. We did put out a security alert. As you well know, our embassy had been closed today for consular and visa visits. Tomorrow, our embassy will be fully open. I can refer you back to the security alert, but today our embassy was open but remained closed for the consular and visa services, and I just want to make sure that we thank the Government of Turkey – the police and also the security services – for facilitating this investigation.

QUESTION: But these are the same police and security services that detained your consulate staff?

MS NAUERT: Yes, I suppose so. I suppose so, but you know what? If it helps thwart something that could have happened, we would certainly thank them for that.

QUESTION: Okay, but you’re not giving them a clean bill of health for everything, are you?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I mean – really, do you have to parse everything? Something positive happened --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: -- in our relationship where they provided assistance to a NATO ally.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: What would be – have been a concern and they addressed a legitimate security issue. There is – we are fully in right to be able to thank the Turkish officials for having done a job well done.

Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: Good, thank you. One question on Turkey and Afrin. Today, Turkish president once more stated that Turkey or Turkish-led forces are going to – very soon will get in Afrin center. We know – we are aware that American forces are not operating in Afrin, but do you have any position with regards to Turkish forces planning to take over the city center in Afrin in upcoming days?

MS NAUERT: Sure. We have real concerns about that because of an escalation of violence. We have called for however long this has been going on – a month or so – for a de-escalation of violence. The more that we would see Turkish forces enter into Syria proper, deeper into Syria, the more that it stands to create a potential humanitarian crisis. We’ve also seen the reports of the Turks needing to set up IDP camps as a result of people possibly having to leave their homes. So I think this further underscores the importance of the UN Security Council resolution that calls for a nationwide ceasefire. Having a nationwide ceasefire would certainly help to stabilize the situation.

There’s another issue here, and that is the fight of – against ISIS, the entire reason why the United States is operating in Syria at all. And we would like to see the focus stay on the fight against ISIS, but as has been reported and as I’ve spoken about and others in the administration have as well, there’s a concern about some of the forces that the United States and coalition partners are working with not being solely focused on the fight against ISIS because, for familiar reasons and other reasons, they’re being – heading over to the Afrin area.

Laurie, do you have something more on that?

QUESTION: Yeah, follow-up on that. Do you have any idea about how many of the SDF forces have gone to Afrin?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to be able to characterize that, but we have long said that that wouldn’t be helpful and that we want the focus to stay on the fight against ISIS.

QUESTION: And the SDF said today that it was withdrawing 1,700 of its men to go to Afrin. Do you have a comment on that?

MS NAUERT: I’ve seen that number. We would encourage everybody to stay focused on the fight against ISIS. Okay. But I do want to add that we also understand that Turkey, a NATO ally, has some legitimate security concerns, but we want the overall de-escalation of violence, whether it’s in Afrin or whether it’s in Eastern Ghouta.

Okay, something on --

QUESTION: Yes, regarding the Cuban diplomat, Fernandez de Cossio, he said just recently that the decision to lower the number – or keep it permanent, the number of employees at the embassy in Havana – is really a political decision. How does the State Department view this case?

MS NAUERT: Sure. I addressed that in a on-the-record comment not long after the Cubans said that. I wish that the Cuban Government would remember why the United States and why Secretary Tillerson made that decision to go to ordered departure, and now our State Department employees are no longer able to bring their family members to Cuba because of the health concerns.

So I’d like to remind Cuba the entire reason why we went to that, because we could not ensure the safety and health of U.S. diplomats who are working in Cuba. So that remains a concern of ours. We still have an investigation that’s underway, so I hope Cuba would focus instead on helping us with the investigation and be less concerned about claiming this is political. This is entirely about the health and the safety and the well-being of Americans.

Okay. All right. We’re going to have to wrap it up pretty soon. Sir, go right ahead.

QUESTION: When President Trump’s – Trump meets Latvian President Vejonis next month, are they going to discuss the issue of rising internal tensions in Latvia over the new law which, in effect, eliminates all Russian-language schools and all Russian-language education?

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure, sir. I know when Secretary Tillerson spoke with his counterpart yesterday, one of the big conversations was talking about the safety of that country and many other countries in the region, reaffirming our position on Article 5 NATO, and also having conversations about Russia’s malign influence in elections around the world.

QUESTION: But internal --

MS NAUERT: Yes. I don’t know. I’m not the President of the United States, so I’m not going to get ahead of his conversations, okay?

QUESTION: No, I know.

MS NAUERT: All right. I’m going to have to wrap it up.

QUESTION: Can I ask – I’ve got one more.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: It was suggested by – after the Russians canceled the Shannon-Ryabkov meeting, I guess Deputy Minister Ryabkov suggested that it might be possible for the Secretary and his boss, Foreign Minister Lavrov, to meet while they’re both in Ethiopia at the same time later this week. Is that anything that’s being considered?

MS NAUERT: We have not received a request for a meeting from the Russian Government to meet with anyone while – with the Secretary, and we have no meetings to announce at this time.

QUESTION: And is it still true that the U.S. has no plans to meet or hear out this Russian woman that’s detained in Thailand?

MS NAUERT: So let me – I have a little bit of information on this for you but not a whole lot. She is not an American citizen. We’re certainly aware of her arrest. The Russian authorities may have more information on her case. Certainly, the Thai or Thai law enforcement may have additional information, but we’re limited in terms of what we have.

QUESTION: Well, I’m just interested to know if U.S. embassy people are – have any plans to talk to her.

MS NAUERT: Not that I am aware of. Look, we support and assist American citizens. She is not an American citizen.

QUESTION: No, but she has offered information – what she says is information about alleged Russian activity during the 2016 election as – I realize that you’re not Special Counsel Mueller, but is – but you just talked about – with the Baltics talked about combating Russian – alleged Russian interference. So I’m just wondering, I mean, is the administration interested in at least – in hearing her out, or do you give no credence to her story at all?

MS NAUERT: Look, I don’t know. This sounds like a pretty bizarre story. The woman has been detained there. I’m sure if there is anything of great interest that we need to be aware of that our Thai officials would inform us of that. Okay?

QUESTION: Speaking of Russian influence, there has been murder in Salisbury, in – an alleged murder, a mysterious poisoning of a Russian double agent who was transferred to the UK as part of a spy swap with 10 sleeper agents that was – that were caught here. He’s been poisoned similar to the Litvinenko case when the, obviously, polonium was used to murder a Russian defector on UK soil. Has the U.S. got any reaction to it yet? The Brits have said they will take strong action, whatever they can do, if it’s confirmed to Russian --

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm, yeah. We’ve certainly seen Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s comments on this. We’re listening to that. We’re aware of the report, and I just have to refer you to the Brits on that.

QUESTION: And as part of the spy swap, three agents that had been working for the Americans allegedly were brought back here. Are you looking after them?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. I don’t have any information to provide you.

Okay. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Just on this possible Lavrov thing, is it – you’re not – are you open to such a meeting if it --

MS NAUERT: Look, we have – our relationship with Russia is not at a point where it looks like it is going to be normalized anytime soon. I can tell you we have not received an invitation or a call or anything to meet with the Russians while the Secretary is on his trip in Africa, and I’ll leave it at that. Thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:41 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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 1, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





March 1, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



DEPARTMENT / SECRETARY TRAVEL



DEPARTMENT



AFGHANISTAN



RUSSIA



SOUTH KOREA/REGION



RUSSIA



SYRIA / RUSSIA



AFGHANISTAN



ISRAEL / PALESTINIANS



BURMA / BANGLADESH



VENEZUELA



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:37 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Hi. Hi, everybody. How are you today?

A couple announcements to start off with today. We’re going to have to keep today a little tight because we have some guests joining us here at the State Department in a short while.

I’d like to start off with telling you about something that’s taking place here tomorrow, and that is – who watched the women in the hockey – in hockey in the Olympics? Weren’t they fantastic? Well, they are coming here to the State Department tomorrow. So our Deputy Secretary John Sullivan and our Under Secretary Steve Goldstein look forward to welcoming the gold-medal-winning 2018 U.S. women’s hockey team here at the State Department tomorrow. I’ll be meeting with the team prior to a reception that we’re hosting for them. They are coming here as a part of our overall sports diplomacy program, so we’re really looking forward to hosting them. If anyone’s interested in meeting them or talking with them, we might be able to facilitate that. So just let us know.

Secondly, I’d like to mention the Secretary’s upcoming trip to Africa. It’ll be his first trip as Secretary of State to the continent. Secretary Tillerson will travel to Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Nigeria from March 6th through the 13th. Secretary Tillerson will meet up with leadership in each country as well as the leadership of the African Union Commission, based in Ethiopia, to further our partnerships with the governments and the people of Africa. In particular, he plans to discuss ways that we can work with our partners to counter terrorism, advance peace and security, promote good governance, and spur mutually beneficial trade and investment. During the trip, he’ll also meet with U.S. embassy personnel and participate in events related to the U.S.-Government-supported activities there.

Next, I want to highlight that today marks the day the Peace Corps was created by President Kennedy back in 1961. In the decades since, nearly 230,000 men and women from across the United States have volunteered to help combat hunger, fight disease, educate students, and create new economic opportunities in countries and communities around the world. Peace Corps volunteers represent many of our country’s highest ideals, including ingenuity, hard work, and sacrifice. For many volunteers, their experiences ignite a love for their host countries and fuel a lifelong passion of government service. Hundreds of returned Peace Corps volunteers currently working here at State and USAID – our department is just one example of how volunteers continue to serve their country after they return. Many of you have met my colleague, Elie; he was a Peace Corps volunteer. I can’t remember where, but somewhere he was. So thanks to all of our Peace Corps volunteers who continue to serve here at the State Department.

Lastly, the Kabul peace process conference took place in Kabul, Afghanistan yesterday. And we’d like to congratulate the Government of Afghanistan on its success. The meeting represented a historic step forward in demonstrating the resolve of the Afghan people to commit a peace process that brings an end to the war with the Taliban. President Ghani made clear in the speech that if the Taliban wants peace in Afghanistan the door to that is open. The Taliban should recognize that the Afghan Government and the Afghan people are offering confidence-building measures to show that real peace is possible. President Ghani made clear that there are no preconditions for peace. The United States and the international community strongly support the path to peace that president Ghani laid out in his speech. We echo the calls from across the Afghan Government and civil society for Afghanistan to join peace talks with the Afghan Government and to participate in the country’s political system.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions. Matt, where would you like to start?

QUESTION: Well, actually, I just – I want to – briefly on that Afghan statement that you just read.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: When you said there were “no preconditions for peace,” does that mean that the Taliban no longer have to accept the Afghan constitution, lay down their weapons, renounce terrorism, et cetera?

MS NAUERT: I would have to refer you to President Ghani for that, because that’s a statement that President Ghani made, and this just came out a short while ago, so I can try to get you some more information. I can’t --

QUESTION: I get that, but this was the U.S. position as well. I mean, this had a U.S. position for a long time, that --

MS NAUERT: I would certainly think that --

QUESTION: -- they would have to accept --

MS NAUERT: -- our position has not changed, that we continue to call upon those to uphold the constitution of Afghanistan.

QUESTION: All right. Then what I wanted to ask is about the statements made by President Putin this morning regarding these new weapons that he said had been tested. I’m wondering what your – what the diplomatic reaction to this is from this building.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Certainly – I mean, I can tell you many of us watched that speech with great interest here from the State Department, and I would imagine across U.S. Government as well. One of the things I want to make clear – and we’ve talked about this type of thing before – that we’re not going to react to every word or idea that world leaders express. It was certainly unfortunate to have watched the video animation that depicted a nuclear attack on the United States. I mean, that’s something that we certainly did not enjoy watching. We don’t regard that as the behavior of a responsible international player. So I just want to make that very clear. It’s – we just don’t consider it to be responsible.

QUESTION: So you are reacting to – you say you’re not going to react to – but you --

MS NAUERT: To every – but --

QUESTION: But you feel compelled in this case to --

MS NAUERT: Feel compelled to say, look, we saw it and we don’t think it’s responsible. We don’t think that kind of imagery, seeing the portrayal in a cheesy video of that kind of attack being conducted on the United States as being a responsible action.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I ask your forbearance to – there’s an issue with some of our Japanese colleagues, who’ve got a very tight time schedule. They want to ask about North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Certainly.

QUESTION: Can I ask you to go to them?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: Thanks. So apologies to everybody else.

MS NAUERT: Where are our Japanese colleagues back there on North Korea, who want --

QUESTION: Is it on? Did he leave?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Really, he’s right there.

MS NAUERT: Is there somebody in particular?

QUESTION: Over here. Sorry.

MS NAUERT: Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: So we haven’t got the readout of President Moon Jae-in’s phone call, but Japanese wires are reporting the content of that. And we --

MS NAUERT: I just did, so hold on.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Let me find it, okay?

QUESTION: Great.

MS NAUERT: And I’d be happy to provide you with that.

QUESTION: And we would also be wondering State Department’s --

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: We would also be wondering – want a statement from the State Department about that as well.

MS NAUERT: Certainly.

QUESTION: Great.

MS NAUERT: So let me provide a readout for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: President Trump spoke today with President Moon Jae-in of the Republic of Korea to congratulate him on the success of the 2018 Olympics. President Trump thanked President Moon for his hospitality to the United States presidential delegation to the opening and closing ceremonies, led by Vice President Mike Pence and advisor to the President Ivanka Trump respectively.

President Moon briefed President Trump on developments regarding North Korea and inter-Korean talks. President Trump and President Moon noted their firm position that any dialogue with North Korea must be conducted with the explicit and unwavering goal of complete, verifiable, and irreversible denuclearization. The two leaders committed to maintain close coordination. And anything beyond that, I’d be happy to try to get for you later, okay?

QUESTION: Great.

MS NAUERT: All right. Hi.

QUESTION: So is the U.S. going to be participating in the Korean decision to send a special envoy to North Korea?

MS NAUERT: I mean, I can just tell you that the United States is latched up very closely with the Republic of Korea and Japan, and so we closely coordinate a lot of our conversations and meetings with them, and I’ll leave it at that.

QUESTION: But will the U.S. be sending anyone in addition to the South Korean?

MS NAUERT: And we would go where?

QUESTION: To --

MS NAUERT: No, no. Okay. Let’s move on.

QUESTION: Can we --

MS NAUERT: Laurie.

QUESTION: Yeah. Several questions.

MS NAUERT: Hold on. One second. What’s that Arshad? Hi, Shadar.

QUESTION: Well, you – all that you commented on with regard to President Putin’s statements really had to do with the animation and not with what is the fundamental issue, which is --

MS NAUERT: Hold on. I have more on that, if you’d like.

QUESTION: Oh, yeah. I do. I would.

MS NAUERT: Matt paused and deferred to our Japanese friend. So --

QUESTION: And now we’re going to Kurdistan.

MS NAUERT: So if we want to go back to President --

QUESTION: I’m happy to go wherever you want.

MS NAUERT: -- if we want to go back to Putin, we can do that. Okay.

QUESTION: I have just a follow-up.

MS NAUERT: Oh, goodness. Okay.

QUESTION: I mean, we’re looking for a statement on North Korea – I mean, South Korea sending an envoy to North Korea, if that’s all right with you. What is the State Department’s --

MS NAUERT: Yes. So I think I just answered the question here from Alicia, that is the United States is latched up very closely with South Korea. We have many conversations with our ally. Those conversations continue. We have a broad range of conversations with them. We share the principle of the denuclearization and the complete and verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and that hasn’t changed. I’ll just say that we are in close contact with them.

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MS NAUERT: Okay. You’re so welcome. Okay.

QUESTION: Russia?

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Back to – do you have something on North Korea?

QUESTION: No.

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right. Let me go to Arshad. We’re a little disorganized today. Okay. Arshad, go ahead.

QUESTION: So you responded to the broadcast of an animation --

MS NAUERT: Correct.

QUESTION: -- which is, after all, a cartoon, but not to the substance, which is Russian claims of having new weapons systems that could threaten the United States. So can you respond to that?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: For example, is it not the case that at least one of these weapon systems has been under development or was under development many decades ago and then went away and --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let me start with that.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: That is certainly a concern of ours. President Putin has confirmed what the United States Government has known for a long time, that Russia has denied prior to this: that Russia has been developing destabilizing weapon systems for more than a decade, in direct violation of its treaty obligations.

President Trump understands the threats facing America and our allies in this century and is determined to protect our homeland and preserve peace through strength. U.S. defense capabilities are and will remain second to none. We have a new defense budget that’s over $700 billion. We believe that our military will be stronger than ever. The President’s nuclear posture review addressed some of this. It made it clear that we’re moving forward to modernize our nuclear arsenal and ensure that our capabilities remain unmatched.

QUESTION: Can you read the first sentence again, which I didn’t quite understand?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Sorry. What?

QUESTION: Can you read the first sentence again, which I didn’t understand?

MS NAUERT: Sure, certainly. President Putin has confirmed what the United States Government has long known but which Russia has denied previously: Russia has been developing destabilizing weapons systems for more than a decade in direct violation of its treaty obligations.

QUESTION: And which treaties is it violating?

MS NAUERT: Some of these that are not in – that they are not in compliance would be the INF treaties. That’s an area of particular concern to us. Since 2014, they’ve not been in compliance with that. They’ve been developing intermediate-range ground launch cruise missiles in direct violation of the INF treaty.

QUESTION: What are you going to do about that?

MS NAUERT: That is not for me to say what the United States is going to do about that. We continue to have conversations across the various agencies and departments in the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: Is there an indication that those weapons that they showed today are actually operational?

MS NAUERT: That’s not something I’m able to answer. Some of those would be intelligence matters, some of those would come out of the Department of Defense.

QUESTION: But I mean – so – but these weapons – like, you said that confirmed what we’ve long been known that he’s developing, but do you believe that they’ve actually developed them or they’re still in the development process?

MS NAUERT: Some of this is new information that we are seeing today. Some of this is information that we’ve been tracking for some time. Some of this information the United States Government will not be able to publicly provide to you, and that’s part of it today.

Okay. Hi, Rich.

QUESTION: Heather, does the Secretary plan on speaking with Foreign Minister Lavrov in – specifically in regard to this morning’s speech? And does this morning’s speech change at all the U.S. attempts to try to work with Russia in certain areas or change this relationship, or is this seen as sort of election year politicking on his part?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think you have to consider the audience that Putin sat before today when he made that announcement and consider the fact that it’s basically his equivalent of our State of the Union address. We also would note that there is an election that’s coming up. So we think he was playing to the audience, certainly.

In terms of Secretary Tillerson and whether or not he plans to speak with him about it, that I’m not sure. This is something that we have many conversations with the Russian Government, not just here in the United States between the Secretary and his counterpart, but with other officials as well.

Okay, Laurie, let’s move on. Okay.

QUESTION: Russia – yeah, on another aspect of Russia which Kurdistan is interested in, General Votel said Tuesday that Russia plays both fireman and arsonist in Syria. Is that a position you would agree with?

MS NAUERT: Yes. I mean, I think I’ve been pretty clear, as has the Secretary, about Russia’s responsibility in Syria. Russia has a responsibility to stop Syria and to stop aiding Syria in attacking its own people. We look at the situation in Eastern Ghouta today, since there was the UN ceasefire that was voted upon unanimously on Saturday – excuse me – yes, on Saturday – and the fighting continues. They are continuing to kill innocent civilians. We have seen more than 100 people die since Saturday alone. This ceasefire is clearly not working. Russia has called for these joke-like humanitarian corridors. Russia needs to just do what the United Nations had agreed to and voted on, and that is a countrywide ceasefire. This is not working. Russia’s responsible for this in part because they continue to train and equip and work with the Syrian Government. We’ve been watching that very carefully. It’s a tremendous concern of the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: And he said that there needs to be more pressure on Russia to do the right thing in Syria. Are you thinking of anything now that would constitute pressure on Syria that General Votel said was necessary?

MS NAUERT: In terms of pressuring Syria or in terms of pressuring Russia?

QUESTION: I’m sorry, pressuring Russia.

MS NAUERT: In – we are having conversations with the Russian Government, I can tell you that. The United Nations is having a series of meetings where they’re talking with other countries, like-minded countries, on exactly what is going on in Syria right now. You recall the Secretary signed on to the chemical weapons program that Paris – that France put together about a month ago or so. They are expected to hold their next round of conversations sometime in March, sometime later this month.

So there are a lot of different ways that we are keeping a close eye on this. What we do – I’ve said this before out of this building – is diplomacy. We will continue to reach out to many like-minded countries. Let me remind you of the 15 countries that signed on to the ceasefire resolution over the weekend. We’re having lots of conversations with those countries that share our concerns.

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: Thank you, and if I could just ask you about Iraq. The parliament passed a resolution --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Let’s – let’s – hold on, let’s stick with anything related to --

QUESTION: You mentioned something about a --

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Let – excuse me --

QUESTION: -- joke-like humanitarian corridor. Is that --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Okay, let’s talk about that.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay.

MS NAUERT: Let’s stick on Syria for right now.

QUESTION: So – and you’re saying that the ceasefire is not holding?

MS NAUERT: I think just said the ceasefire is clearly not working.

QUESTION: So what – I understand. So what are you proposing doing?

MS NAUERT: And here’s the thing: This idea of a so-called humanitarian corridor, which is a narrow little banner, that if you look at the video that you see on TV, people aren’t using that. Why are people not using that? Well, it didn’t work in Aleppo very well, did it? People are afraid to use it. They are afraid if they try to leave Eastern Ghouta, that they could be conscripted into working with Bashar al-Assad, that they someday may not be able to go home, or they could be killed. People are fearful of that.

That does not go far enough. The idea that Russia is calling for a so-called humanitarian corridor, I want to be clear, is a joke. What needs to happen instead is a nationwide ceasefire that was voted upon unanimously at the United Nations last Saturday. Fifteen countries supported it. Let me remind you, so did Russia. So did Russia.

I want to be clear also that there are a few exemptions to that ceasefire so no one tries to parse my words. Al-Nusrah, al-Qaida, and ISIS – those are the exemptions. Anything else on Syria?

QUESTION: How about --

QUESTION: But I think --

QUESTION: Russia?

QUESTION: -- Said’s question here is: What is the United States going to do about it, because so far, as you’ve said, the ceasefire hasn’t held --

MS NAUERT: Right.

QUESTION: -- has never even been implemented. Beyond just talking to people about it, is the United States going to take action?

MS NAUERT: Well, again, what we do in this building, we do diplomacy. Okay? We have conversations with countries all around the world, and that’s exactly what we’re engaged in. Ambassador Haley at the United Nations is doing her part at the United Nations, we’re doing our part here out of the State Department. We’re engaging in talks with the Russians in Geneva, the State Department is. We are investigating various mechanisms that would hold Russia and the Syrian regime accountable --

QUESTION: What kind of mechanisms?

MS NAUERT: For using chemical weapons on its own people. We have talked about the OPCW and their role in identifying substances that were used.

QUESTION: What about sanctions on --

MS NAUERT: Hold on.

QUESTION: I mean, just – what about sanctions --

MS NAUERT: Elise – Elise, let me finish, because you’re asking me a question about some of the things that are being done. There are other mechanisms in place. Paris I mentioned. The accord, the agreement that Secretary Tillerson and 25 or 26 other countries signed onto. We have a new member just as of yesterday. I’m trying to remember if it was Norway or the Netherlands. Let me get back to you on that. There is that.

A lot of these meetings are happening. We will hold Russia accountable and hold Russia responsible. And let me again urge you – I know a lot of you are so obsessed with Russia and what Russia did in the United States in the 2016 elections. I would urge you to --

QUESTION: I --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: -- to show your outrage --

QUESTION: I’m sorry, I really --

QUESTION: Actually, I don’t think that’s true in this room.

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Hold on. I would assure you --

QUESTION: Maybe in some other briefing rooms around town.

MS NAUERT: Okay, maybe in other briefing rooms --

QUESTION: Not this one.

MS NAUERT: -- but let me ask reporters to turn that around. Fine to ask about Russia’s role in influencing or trying to influence the 2016 elections, but look at Russia and what it’s doing in killing people in Syria. I would urge you to do that.

QUESTION: I think – I mean, I’m sorry, I think that everybody in this room is asking about that and talking about that. And I don’t – I reject your assertion that everybody in this room is obsessed with the --

MS NAUERT: I don’t – I don’t think I said everybody in this room is obsessed, but in general – in general.

QUESTION: But the point is --

QUESTION: Okay, well, it’s just not – it’s just germane to the questions --

QUESTION: But the point is you haven’t gotten a single question about that topic. You haven’t gotten one question about --

QUESTION: It’s not germane to the question at hand, and the question at hand is: What is the U.S. going to do to hold Russia accountable when in the past the U.S. has imposed sanctions on Russia for its actions in Ukraine? Are there sanctions not just for chemical weapons, but are there sanctions being considered for supporting the Syrian regime for its barrel bombing of civilians in Eastern Ghouta and elsewhere?

MS NAUERT: You know we never forecast sanctions, but I can tell you there are a lot of options that are now being considered.

QUESTION: You’re talking about countrywide ceasefire. Would that – should that include Turkey in the North?

MS NAUERT: We have talked about this in the past. We talked about this on Tuesday.

QUESTION: Today. I mean, today you are calling for a countrywide ceasefire.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Should this include Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. That --

QUESTION: Should Turkey cease all military operations?

MS NAUERT: We look at the entire part of the country, and that’s what was called for – a ceasefire throughout the country.

QUESTION: Sorry, you went – you spoke about that at length on Tuesday, right?

MS NAUERT: Correct.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Yes, I did.

QUESTION: And the Turks have for two days running said that you should read the resolution, and they rejected your interpretation.

MS NAUERT: Well, okay, let me --

QUESTION: You have a comment on that?

MS NAUERT: Let me go back and read the resolution one more time. I think I was pretty clear, and I think you all understood it as well, that the resolution calls for – and this is the UN resolution – it affirms that the cessation of hostilities shall not apply to military operations against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant, ISIL, also known as Daesh; al-Qaida; and al-Nusrah Front, and that other individuals, groups, undertakings, and entities associated with al-Qaida, ISIL, and other terrorist groups, as designated by the Security Council.

So I think that the United Nations and the resolution is pretty clear and that it speaks for itself.

QUESTION: A question on Iraq.

QUESTION: Are you still considering --

MS NAUERT: Okay, let’s move on. Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: All right. So just to go back to the Russian missiles for a minute, as you say, Putin seems to have confirmed that he’s developing these weapons that would breach the various treaties, including the INF treaties. The United States is also modernizing its nuclear arsenal. Do you still consider yourselves bound by these treaties that Russia, apparently, has already broken?

MS NAUERT: We are in compliance with the treaties. We put up --

QUESTION: You’re in compliance currently, but do you --

MS NAUERT: We put --

QUESTION: Would you – you intend to remain within the compliance?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware that we – we certainly would intend to remain in that. I’m not the arms control and verification expert, so if you want a deeper dive on that, I can certainly put --

QUESTION: It’s a matter of policy whether you --

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: It’s a matter of policy, diplomatic policy, whether you remain in a treaty or not.

MS NAUERT: We believe that we remain in the treaty. Okay?

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Are you still considering (inaudible) negotiate with Russia in the bigger sphere?

QUESTION: Who is the arms control expert?

MS NAUERT: Our – we have our AVC Bureau. They’re our experts there.

QUESTION: Right. Who is the under secretary?

MS NAUERT: The -- cute, Matt. (Laughter.) Okay, let’s move on.

QUESTION: Are you still considering --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. Who are – your name is?

QUESTION: Alexander Khristenko, Russian TV. Are you still considering negotiations with Russia on global security issues and nuclear arms issues after today’s announcement?

MS NAUERT: Would – are – so your question is would we cut off conversations and negotiations?

QUESTION: I mean do you change something in your attitude toward this?

MS NAUERT: Well, look, it’s certainly concerning to see your government, to see your country, put together that kind of video that shows the Russian Government attacking the United States. That’s certainly a concern of ours. I don’t think that that’s very constructive, nor is it responsible. I’ll leave it at that. Okay?

QUESTION: It was not attacking the United States. It was not attacking the United States. It was two missiles sent to different directions. So why do you say that they are --

MS NAUERT: Are you – oh, you’re --

QUESTION: Sorry. I’m from Russia. Channel One in Russia.

MS NAUERT: You’re from Russian TV, too.

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

MS NAUERT: Okay. So hey, enough said then. I’ll move on.

QUESTION: Wait, I’m sorry. What does that mean?

MS NAUERT: What does what mean?

QUESTION: I mean, it’s – they’re not – they’re not officials of the Russian Government. They’re just asking a question about Russia.

MS NAUERT: Oh. Oh, really? Okay. Well, we know that RT and other Russian news – so-called news organizations --

QUESTION: They’re a --

MS NAUERT: -- are funded and directed by the Russian Government. So if I don’t have a whole lot of tolerance --

QUESTION: As are other media in this room, Heather.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Heather, can I just ask you one thing about the video?

MS NAUERT: Oh, my gosh. Yes.

QUESTION: This video that you’re talking about, the cartoon.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Excuse me. The – as I understand it, and I could be wrong, the video that was played doesn’t actually show the missiles hitting anything. Are you – but I’m just asking. Is it the assessment of the U.S. Government that had the missiles in the video ended up at their presumed target, that presumed – that that target was the United States?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I think it’s certainly looks like that. I’d ask you to go back and take a look at that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: It’s pretty clear what their target is, okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: So this is – let’s move on from this.

Nazira, you have a question about Afghanistan?

QUESTION: Yes, Heather. Thank you very much. As you mentioned, Kabul Process conference. What was the U.S. expectation from that conference? Still United States will satisfied or something else? The conclusion. What was the conclusion from it?

MS NAUERT: Well, look, I can tell you that we were certainly a part of it, that the United States was pleased to have representation at the Kabul Process conference, and we congratulate the Government of Afghanistan for holding that conference. I mean, I think that that is a – certainly a good step forward in doing so.

We continue to have conversations with the Government of Afghanistan and continue to engage them on a daily basis through our ambassador there or through our acting assistant secretary here. We support the cause of peace in Afghanistan, recognizing that peace talks have to be Afghan-led and Afghan-owned.

Okay, all right. Said.

QUESTION: Very quickly.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: There was a news item yesterday, both in the Saudi press and in the Israeli press, that there is some sort of a peace proposal that will be coming out shortly. It was – so I wonder if you have anything on that, if you could share anything on that with us.

MS NAUERT: The report that we saw – I think it is an unfortunate report because it prejudges people against a plan on the part of the United States that is not yet complete. We have not released our plan. When it is ready to be released, the White House will go ahead and put that out. And some, I think, are trying to not only prejudge it but to try to draw conclusions about what is in that plan.

QUESTION: Is the Secretary of State involved in this process?

MS NAUERT: Yes, the Secretary of State has been involved in meetings and conversations about this entire process.

QUESTION: And lastly, there’s going to be a big conference in town this weekend. It’s the AIPAC conference. Is anyone from the United – from the State Department attending or speaking at that meeting?

MS NAUERT: I would imagine so, but I just don’t have any confirmation to read out to you for that. Okay. All right.

QUESTION: Religious --

MS NAUERT: We’re going to – we’re going to have to wrap it up, but --

QUESTION: One on religious freedom.

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Hi.

QUESTION: Yes. Ambassador-at-Large for Religious Freedom Sam Brownback told VOA in an interview that what happened in Rohingya is a religious cleansing against Muslim. (Inaudible) is already released on our website. My question for you is: Is it the United States position that Rohingya crisis is religious cleansing against Muslim; and secondly, is religious cleansing now a new category that the U.S. would imposing sanctions. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: So part of your question – is that a new category? No, there is not a new category that would include that. The Secretary had defined this after taking a very close look at this as ethnic cleansing. It is a long road to making those sorts of determinations, getting a lot of information and evidence that we have to compile. The Secretary made that determination back in the fall. Okay.

QUESTION: I have a question on Iraq.

QUESTION: A follow up on --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi, Lalit.

QUESTION: The Burma – Burma has increased its troop presence in the border with Bangladesh. Bangladesh is opposing it. Do you have anything on that?

MS NAUERT: Bangladesh is?

QUESTION: Has opposed the presence of additional troops for the Burmese on the border.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I can just tell you that we’re watching that carefully. I can certainly understand that that would be a concern of the Government of Bangladesh, but we’re watching that one closely. And that’s all I have for you, okay?

QUESTION: A question on Iraq?

MS NAUERT: We’re – we have to wrap it up.

QUESTION: A question on Iraq.

MS NAUERT: Let me get – I’ve gotten to you already. Let me get to somebody else.

Miss, hi.

QUESTION: Hi, I’m Cristina Garcia with the Spanish newswire EFE.

MS NAUERT: Yes, hi.

QUESTION: I have a question on Venezuela. So today Venezuela has decided to postpone the election to May, and also there is now an opposition candidate running. I want to know does it affect the sanctions that the United States is considering and if you have some update on those sanctions. When will they come – before the election, after the election? I know you don’t forecast sanctions, but that’s (inaudible).

MS NAUERT: Yeah, so I’m not going to have anything for you on the sanctions. I can just tell you that we’re considering a lot of different economic and diplomatic options in dealing with Venezuela and, hopefully, its return to its constitution as we have watched the situation deteriorate in Venezuela over the past year or so. We have said we are considering all options to restore democracy to Venezuela, including individual and potentially financial sanctions.

QUESTION: And what about the election that has been postponed? Does the United States like this step a little?

MS NAUERT: Last I had known, the election was set for April the 22nd, I believe. So it – you’re saying it’s been pushed from there?

QUESTION: Yes, for May. Take place in May.

MS NAUERT: Okay, all right. I had not heard that, so my apologies. I’ll see if I can get anything more for you on that. Okay?

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Heather, can we --

MS NAUERT: All right.

QUESTION: Can we stay in WHA for a second, just to – I just want to ask you. This is a bureau that over the course of the last couple weeks has – seems to be – have – well, doesn’t seem to – is losing a tremendous amount of institutional knowledge and experience, the latest being Roberta Jacobson announcing her resignation today, effective in a month or so. But this is after your ambassador in Panama and Tom Shannon also announced their plans to resign. I’m wondering if there’s concern in this – in the building about WHA and the loss of knowledge and experience there.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, so you’re referring to our ambassador, Roberta Jacobson, who serves in Mexico. She’s been with the State Department for – I believe it was 31 years. And if you look at the amount of time that many of these individuals have invested in their careers at the State Department – her, 31 years; Ambassador Joe Yun was – I believe it was 30-some years; Under Secretary Tom Shannon was – I think it was 35 years – that’s a tremendous amount of time to be working in any one industry, building, service, government agency, or department. People choosing to retire for personal reasons – and that’s perfectly fine with us.

We thank her for her service. She has certainly done a tremendous job in representing U.S. interests with the Government of Mexico. We thank her for that. But when people choose to retire – and we’ve noticed that they’ve all served for about the same period of time – it is not uncommon that people will eventually choose to move on.

QUESTION: Well, yeah. That’s not my – that is not my question.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But I mean, the three people and the careers that you’ve just mentioned, that’s 95 years cumulative experience. And my question to you was not – ambassador – people move on, yes. But I’m wondering if there is any concern at all on the seventh floor that this particular – this region in particular, WHA, is losing such a huge wealth of talent and --

MS NAUERT: Well, we have a --

QUESTION: -- experience.

MS NAUERT: We have --

QUESTION: You don’t have an assistant secretary even nominated; you have an acting one, which is okay. The President gets to choose ambassadors; that’s his prerogative, and that’s fine. But I’m just wondering more broadly, regardless of the reason for their departures, if there is some concern that WHA – which the United States is actually in this region, right; so these are --

MS NAUERT: We certainly are, yes.

QUESTION: -- our closest neighbors – if there’s a concern that this is – that you’re losing this amount of experience.

MS NAUERT: No.

QUESTION: No?

MS NAUERT: I mean, we are thankful for their service. They have served our country and this department with dignity and with distinction, and we are grateful to them for that. We have a tremendous number of qualified, good people who are here in this building who work for us every day.

QUESTION: Right, but you don’t have --

MS NAUERT: All around the world.

QUESTION: But you don’t --

MS NAUERT: And it doesn’t mean that just because there are a few people sitting in the bureau, or a few people out at post doing those jobs, that there aren’t other experts. You all may not know their names; it doesn’t mean that they don’t exist and they aren’t excellent at their jobs. There’s also the fundamental belief that people should be promoted in their careers, and we look to the future generations of people who are younger in this department to be able to bring them up through the ranks and take over these positions.

QUESTION: I’m all in favor --

MS NAUERT: Do you want somebody --

QUESTION: I’m all in favor of youth.

MS NAUERT: -- around forever? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’m all in favor of youth; that’s wonderful. Remind me again who the nominees are for Mr. Feeley – Ambassador Feeley in Panama. Who’s going to – who’s been nominated to replace him? Who’s been nominated to replace Ambassador Jacobson? Who’s been nominated to replace Under Secretary Shannon, and who has been --

MS NAUERT: Matt, I would refer you then to the White House for those nominations. You know very well --

QUESTION: And who – has anybody?

MS NAUERT: You know very well where nominations come from.

QUESTION: That nobody has. So if you’re interested in promoting the youth and the experience, or midlevel people who should go into the – then one would think that you would have replacements in line.

MS NAUERT: And Matt, you well know --

QUESTION: And there – the point is --

MS NAUERT: -- that some of these are political positions --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: -- and some of these are career positions, and we work every day to find the people who are the best fit for those positions.

QUESTION: But the point is is that people are not – I think there would be less concern – well, according to you there is no concern at all that these people are leaving – but there would be less concern for people on the outside who are – who do think that this is an issue, if there were people in line to replace the people who are leaving. And the fact of the matter is is they’re not.

MS NAUERT: Just because you’re not aware of it does not mean that that does not exist. Okay?

QUESTION: They haven’t been nominated.

MS NAUERT: Okay. There are people in mind and in line for those types of positions; perhaps you’ve just not heard about it yet, okay?

We’ve got to go.

QUESTION: I have a question on Iraq, Heather, please.

MS NAUERT: I will talk to you after the briefing, then.

QUESTION: No. The Iraqi parliament voted Wednesday to call for a timetable for the Iraqi – for foreign --

(The briefing was concluded at 3:12 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - February 08, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





February 8, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

GREECE



UZBEKISTAN



TURKEY



CHINA



SYRIA



IRAQ



EGYPT



CHINA



NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:44 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Hi, everybody. How are you? I think this is the busiest briefing room I’ve seen since maybe the Secretary was here or day one on the job. So it’s nice to see you all today. A couple things I want to start with. Oh, and by the way, we have some students in the back. That’s why. You’re all from?

PARTICIPANT: Miami University of Ohio.

MS NAUERT: Miami of Ohio. Got it. You’re journalism students?

PARTICIPANT: Some.

MS NAUERT: Some of you are. Okay. Well, welcome. We’re thrilled to have you here, and you should talk to some of these folks before you head out of the room. Thanks so much for coming; thanks for the time.

I’d like to start out with some news that has come out of Greece today, and I’d like to say that we want to condemn the release of a convicted terrorist. His name is Dimitris Koufodinas. He was released on a two-day furlough from a Greek prison. He is a convicted terrorist. He is responsible for killing 11 civilians – some British, U.S., and also Turkish embassy staff who had worked for the United States, and obviously the UK and Turkey. They released him on a two-day furlough. They did that just three months ago as well. We fundamentally believe that convicted terrorists do not deserve a vacation from prison. Our embassy in Athens has conveyed our serious concerns about the decision to the Greek Government.

Next, I’d like to mention something taking place in Uzbekistan. The United States Government welcomes the release of a journalist and activist named Dilmurod Saidov. He was sentenced in 2009 for 12 years for bribery and other criminal charges, but he has always maintained his innocence. We recognize the president of Uzbekistan for releasing dozens of prisoners of conscience since assuming the presidency in September of 2016 and for taking important steps to reform the rule of law in Uzbekistan. Support for the rule of law remains a core element of U.S. foreign policy and a cornerstone of any democracy. I’d also like to mention that our Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asia Alice Wells traveled to Uzbekistan last week. She met with senior government officials to review progress that was made under the president’s reform agenda, including on issues of human rights, fundamental freedoms, as well as security and economic cooperation, and this too was one of the matters that they discussed.

Next, in Turkey, where we’d like to say the United States is deeply concerned by the February 8th conviction without credible evidence of U.S. citizen Serkan Golge for being a member of a terror organization. We will continue to follow his case closely along with those of other U.S. citizens whose ongoing prosecution under the state of emergency raises serious concerns about respect for judicial independence, protections enshrined in the Turkish constitution, including an individual’s right to a fair trial. The safety of U.S. citizens traveling to or residing in Turkey remains a concern. He was arrested, by the way, back in July of 2017. He’s a NASA scientist, if that helps you to remember his case. We’d like to call on the Turkish Government to end the protracted state of emergency, to release those detained arbitrarily under emergency authorities, and to safeguard the rule of law consistent with Turkey’s own domestic and international obligations and commitments.

Finally, Secretary Tillerson today hosted the Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi here at the State Department for a bilateral meeting which was followed by a lunch in the James Madison Room that’s upstairs on the 8th floor. They agreed on the importance of continuing a constructive and productive relationship aimed at cooperation on mutual challenges and addressing our differences forthrightly.

During the meeting, both sides reaffirmed President Trump and President Xi’s commitment to keep up pressure on North Korea’s illegal nuclear weapons and missile programs. They discussed the need to achieve a fair and reciprocal bilateral economic relationship and shared approaches to stemming the flow of deadly narcotics. Secretary Tillerson and the state councilor look forward to continuing discussions on these and other topics at the next Diplomatic and Security Dialogue during the first half of 2018, and we were happy to welcome that delegation after their 13-hour flight when they just arrived to Washington from Beijing.

Josh, I’d be happy to start with your questions.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks, Heather. Let’s start with Syria?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: So as you’ve said many times before, our U.S. mission in Syria is to defeat the Islamic State group and prevent their re-emergence, but overnight U.S. forces killed about a hundred people, none of whom were IS. So how does the U.S. maintain that our mission really has not expanded beyond Islamic State?

MS NAUERT: Well, the State Department can’t confirm exactly who was killed in that mission, but we can say we don’t hesitate – and the military has been clear in stating this, and they put out a press release, I believe it was earlier today or last night, to this effect – saying that we will use force if our troops are threatened, and that was clearly the case. Beyond that, I’d have to refer you to DOD for the details of that.

QUESTION: And how effective – I mean, you’ve put a lot of credence in the past in this deconfliction channel with Russia as our primary mechanism to really try to prevent clashes along that line. How effectively would you say that the deconfliction line seems to be working these days?

MS NAUERT: Well, that would also be in Department of Defense’s lane. What this essentially is is a phone line where the U.S. military and also the Russian military can pick up the phone and have conversations about where one another’s forces are. That deconfliction channel continues to serve its purpose. It’s considered a professional exchange between our two militaries. But beyond that, you’d have to talk to DOD. It’s still in effect, though.

QUESTION: So if – I mean, I just want to understand something. You’re saying that your forces were threatened. Which forces, first of all? When you say our forces were threatened, which forces are those?

MS NAUERT: As you well know, we have coalition forces there and we also work with the Syrian Democratic Forces, and I won’t go beyond that.

QUESTION: And now, to my understanding – in fact, if we go back a week or two and so on --

QUESTION: It was U.S. forces that were threatened, right?

QUESTION: Yeah, you’re saying that --

QUESTION: Not coalition or --

MS NAUERT: My understanding – and again, this would have to go over to DOD, but my understanding is U.S. forces working with the SDF.

QUESTION: So they’re like maybe trainers or training personnel and so on --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to comment on the work or the activities or the mission of U.S. forces over there.

QUESTION: But walk us through this. Like, it’s quite confusing because a couple weeks ago the SDF actually called on the Syrian forces to protect them. So there’s some sort of an alliance between these two forces, and the Syrians are saying, “Our forces or those affiliated with us, we’re actually attacking ISIS.” So walk us – explain this to us, if you can.

MS NAUERT: Said, I think I’d have to refer you to Department of Defense. They have a – I believe it’s an on-camera briefing at – about at this hour right now. So I’d have to refer you to them.

QUESTION: Let me – if I can have your response --

MS NAUERT: Okay, then we’re going to have --

QUESTION: One last one.

MS NAUERT: Then we’re going to have to move on.

QUESTION: What? Yes, absolutely. One last question.

MS NAUERT: Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Your counterpart, Maria Zakharova in Moscow, basically said that you or the United States is intent on dividing Syria and keeping the conflict going. Do you have any response to her?

MS NAUERT: The United States is there to defeat ISIS. I think everybody knows – everybody knows the horror that that country has been through. The United States is there to defeat ISIS, for no other purpose. We are there also to stabilize the country so that the country hopefully can get through the Geneva process and to have elections and decide what they want to do with its future. We’ve been clear about that all along. There is no other reason that the United States is going to be there. Our --

QUESTION: And you’re committed to the unity of Syria?

MS NAUERT: We have said that.

QUESTION: You remain --

MS NAUERT: We have said that all along, yes.

Arshad, I think you had a question about Syria.

QUESTION: No longer, thanks.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay, Michelle.

QUESTION: Syria? In the past, and most recently, the State Department has termed its collaboration with Russia in Syria as a test, and it was talked about pretty optimistically not that long ago. So given these recent events in other areas, would you say that that test has failed?

MS NAUERT: I wouldn’t say that the test has failed, Michelle. What I would say, it’s a very complicated, complex relationship, and the Secretary has been very clear about where our relationship currently stands. You may recall last year he said that the relationship was at a low point. We would like to rebuild that relationship because we have a lot of areas of mutual concern. DPRK is one of them. They have signed on to four successive UN Security Council unanimous resolutions. We need more help from Russia on the matter of North Korea and denuclearization. That is one area.

Another area where we manage to work together right now successfully is in that zone in southwestern Syria, and that’s where a ceasefire has held since July of last year. So we have those areas where we can work together, but we have a lot of areas of serious concern with that country. And I think we’ve covered that pretty well.

Okay, anything else on Syria?

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: On Syria, yeah.

MS NAUERT: Hey, Barbara.

QUESTION: Just to see, Heather, if you have anything at all on this New York Times report that the SDF has picked up these two British ISIS guys that – they were members of the Beatles group, the one that Jihadi John was heading. Apparently, the SDF has them detained. Do you have anything on that?

MS NAUERT: I just saw that report as I was coming out to the briefing room. I’m afraid I don’t have anything for you on that, but that would probably be something that DOD could best address.

Okay, hi.

QUESTION: On Syria, you issued a statement saying the attacks on civilians must stop, but what if they don’t? Because I think Michelle was asking on Tuesday if your previous statements were a final warning, and it wasn’t because there’s a new warning. So are you going to issue warnings every day, every week, once a --

MS NAUERT: I think I’m not going to get ahead of any actions that we may or may not take. Some of those would be determined in an interagency process and it wouldn’t just be the State Department weighing into that. This is something that we watch very carefully. It is something that Secretary Tillerson is engaged in every single day along with his counterparts at some of the U.S. Government agencies. The Secretary recently talked about this, and let me just underscore and highlight some of the important things that we would like to see take place with regard to Russia as it pertains to Syria.

They need to stop using chemical weapons – Syria does. But we also know that chemical weapons use is enabled by Russia. They need to support a new mandate, like the JIM -the J-I-M – which has been foiled multiple times at the UN Security Council. Secretary Tillerson – we talked about this the other day – took part in the Paris signing of a new entity that’s been set up by the French with – I believe it’s 25 other governments who care about having an investigative mechanism put in place so that we can prevent the use of chemical weapons against civilians.

Let me remind you, six times in the last 30 days some form of chemical weapons have been used on the Syrian people. It’s disgusting, it’s horrific, and it’s evil, and we would like to see that stop. But we’ll keep following this, we’ll keep working on it. The government is meeting – I have to assure you that this is a top issue for us.

Anything else on Syria?

QUESTION: To Francesco’s point on that --

MS NAUERT: Okay, yeah.

QUESTION: -- despite all of these statements about the use of chemical weapons, these attempts do continue. And Secretary Tillerson yesterday on the flight to Kingston, Jamaica – I don’t remember which leg it was – said that there’s little --

MS NAUERT: You were on the whole trip, right?

QUESTION: -- that the U.S. can do to effect change, to change Russia’s behavior. Is that a concession that the U.S. doesn’t have the leverage that it needs to effect change?

MS NAUERT: The United States doesn’t give up. We just flat-out don’t give up. As American people, we don’t give up. We stand up, we do what’s right, we fight on behalf of people who are being humiliated, people who are being terrorized. That is why we are in Syria. We are there to help the people. We will continue to put pressure on the Russian Government to do the right thing, but it’s not the United States alone. Let me remind you there are 73, 74 – I forget – members of the D-ISIS coalition who care just as much as we do about these activities. So it’s not the United States alone.

Okay.

QUESTION: So would you say that the U.S. has a responsibility to protect civilians, a humanitarian responsibility, in Syria?

MS NAUERT: We have called for numerous ceasefires. We’d like to see a UN ceasefire take place in Syria right now to be able to get humanitarian aid in to the civilians who deserve it and who desperately need it. We’ve been clear about that all along.

Okay, let’s move on to Iraq. You want to talk about Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, I shouldn’t jump to conclusions there. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I had several questions. We’ll do Iraq. On the Iraqi reconstruction conference next week, which you sent out a message – a note about, there’ll be both government and private sector there, as you suggested. And how will the government – money from governments that will go to UN agencies. Is that correct?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Well, this is something that’s being put on by the Government of Iraq, Kuwait, and also the World Bank. Secretary Tillerson will be traveling to Kuwait next week sometime to participate in this. He’s leading the U.S. delegation.

My understanding is that about 2,300 members of the private sector will also be joining, in which they’ll talk about ways that they can help facilitate the large-scale reconstruction taking place in Iraq. Our policy posture has changed since previous administrations – remember, we used to be in the whole nation-building. The United States Government is not doing that any longer. We are providing basic stabilization – we’ve talked about this – turning the lights back on, providing clean water, getting the basic setup. But ultimately, we see that it’s best for the countries and best for the region, too – and U.S. taxpayers – to have other people participate in the reconstruction, large-scale reconstruction of these countries.

In – up at the UN in New York back in September, there was a ministerial meeting of likeminded countries for the Coalition to Defeat ISIS, and one of the things many other nations there were talking about is the importance and how they wanted to participate in the rebuilding of some of these countries, specifically Iraq. So I think that’s the direction that the overall region is heading in right now.

QUESTION: Will you be – will you, the U.S. Government, be making – announcing a contribution at this conference?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of any announcements that we will be making. I can tell you overall, over the past few years we have spent – the United States Government has – $1.7 billion in humanitarian aid in Iraq alone; $190 million on stabilization efforts; $112 million just to clear IEDs; and of course, there’s the blood, sweat, and tears that our brave men and women have put into protecting Iraq.

QUESTION: Final question on this. I understand that you are pushing for Baghdad to allow Kurdish representation in this conference. Is there – have – how does that stand now? Is there any news?

MS NAUERT: I’m not – I don’t have any details on that, but I think the Iraqi Government would be in charge of its own delegation and exactly who participates and who attends.

I’m going to have to cut the briefing short today. I just want to make you all aware. I should’ve announced that up front. Laurie, did you just gasp? Abdul, sorry I didn’t get to you the other day. Go right ahead

QUESTION: Thank you. About Egypt. In the run-up to the presidential election in March, the Egyptian Government continues to hold several journalists without trial including my Al-Jazeera colleague Mahmoud Hussein. Are you having any kind of conversation with the Egyptians about press freedom in their country in the run up to the election?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. First, let me say I didn’t realize that it was one of your colleagues. I know that overall press freedoms in Egypt is a major concern to many journalists and people who believe in free speech and who want that. Last week or the week before, I was briefing over at the Foreign Press Center, and another Egyptian journalist had asked me about the overall situation there. It’s something that we’re watching very carefully. We’re concerned about reports that Egypt’s prosecutor general had launched an investigation into some opposition figures, so I want to wrap that into this overall discussion.

In terms of any updates on your colleague, I don’t have anything for you on that. I can say overall that as a part of our U.S. Government discussions with Egyptian officials we have these types of conversations, not only about election freedoms and allowing opposition parties and opposition figures to take part in elections, but also having a free, fair and open process. That’s something we consistently bring up.

QUESTION: And as a follow-up, in terms of Ahmed Shafik pulling out of the running, in terms of Sami Anan being detained as a candidate in the election, and so on, what are your expectations of the election process and how it should be?

MS NAUERT: I think what – the answer to that would be what we say in many other countries. We want for other countries to have a free and fair electoral process in which all people can participate in the election. Free and fair is something that’s important. As I said, we’re concerned about reports that Egypt’s prosecutor general launched an investigation into opposition figures, and I’ll just leave it at that. Okay.

QUESTION: Just one more, I promise.

MS NAUERT: Okay, but I’ve – I want to get to a couple other people here before I --

QUESTION: I promise, just --

MS NAUERT: -- have to head up.

QUESTION: Just a --

MS NAUERT: And we haven’t even talked about Asia.

QUESTION: Okay, just a last one.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: So many Egyptians listening to you will say the U.S. is meddling in the internal politics of Egypt. Do you respect that logic?

MS NAUERT: Look, you’re asking – you’re asking to have it both ways now. You want to hear our concern about press freedoms and about fee and fair elections, but then on the other hand, you say, “You’re meddling.” The United States doesn’t meddle. We share our concerns and we have diplomatic conversations with many nations around the world, and that’s fair to say. And those countries, likewise, have conversations with us about concerns that they may have about U.S. foreign policy or, in some instances, even domestic events.

Okay. Let’s go on over to Asia. Michelle, sorry, I didn’t get to these folks in the back. Hey, how are you doing? Good to see you.

QUESTION: I just have two quick one. First, recently, Secretary Tillerson labeled China as a new imperial power. He criticized China’s trade practice in Latin America. I wonder if his criticism in this – on the trade issue came up during today’s meeting.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Some of our meetings with countries we consider to be very private conversations. Some of those relationships with certain countries we have better conversations and we work better together when we keep some of those things private, and China would be one of those countries. I can say we have a constructive relationship with China. We have a frank exchange of ideas and information and our viewpoints. Our President has made it very clear his concerns about trade imbalances. That’s the kind of thing that comes up. We have a lot of conversations about those.

QUESTION: Yes. But when you talk about the cooperation, on the other hand, in the National Security Strategy the United States labeled China as “strategic competitor,” and in the State of the Union, China was “rivalry,” and now the new word, “new imperial power.” So how do you define your relationship with China? Is it getting more and more negative?

MS NAUERT: We have a broad relationship with China. We have areas of cooperation, obviously, where we agree on the issue of North Korea and the importance of denuclearization. On that matter, we expect, we hope, that China will do more, because we know that they can do more in terms of adhering to UN Security Council resolutions and sanctions that have been put in place against North Korea.

We’re not seeking an adversarial relationship with the Government of China. We are simply identifying actions that China has taken that undermine a rules-based order. Our conversations are deep and broad. They can, in addition to including trade and issues of national security, also include cyber issues, also including human rights. Democracy is something that often comes up, and freedom of the press is something that comes up as well.

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Hey, Cindy. How are you?

QUESTION: Good, thank you. Yesterday Secretary Tillerson said the U.S. is not going to be lulled in by the North Korean charm offensive, marching with the South Koreans at the Olympics. Would the U.S. be open to a diplomatic breakthrough between North and South Korea, and are there any concerns about a possible clash between the U.S. and South Korea on this?

MS NAUERT: Let me go back and remind folks that we have an incredibly strong ally relationship with not only the Republic of Korea, but also Japan. These are ironclad relationships. You saw the Vice President’s meetings that he had with President Moon. They were terrific, strong, productive meetings. We are on the same page. Do we sometimes approach things differently from a different mindset? Well, absolutely, of course we do. Think about the proximity of South Korea to North Korea. Think about what that country has been through. Think about the story that happened back in 1988 when a plane was exploded and South Koreans died. It is no wonder that its citizens would be naturally concerned about the threat that is right at their doorstep.

The United States will not back away from its ally, and no one is going to drive a wedge between the United States and the Republic of Korea and the United States and also Japan. The Vice President spoke very eloquently about his meetings that he had. My colleague, Marc Knapper, our charge d’affaires, who’s based in Seoul at our embassy there, he was in the meeting with the Vice President. If I can, I’d like to just provide you all a little bit of a readout and note that we received from Marc. Bear with me one second and let me find it in this big old book.

He describes it as this – and again, he was in the meeting with the Vice President – “It was a good meeting. It was extremely open and warm. Both sides emphasized our rock-solid alliance and enduring friendship while stressing our shared commitment to pursuing North Korea’s denuclearization through the ongoing pressure campaign. We hope that the North-South progress will yield progress to denuke while under – while there is the underlying need for strong deterrence posture and a continued vigilance. We have high hopes and support for a successful Olympics.”

So I think that shows the strength of our relationship, the strength of our agreements that we share, the value and the desire to have a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. Okay?

QUESTION: Heather --

MS NAUERT: I’ve got time for one more question on Asia, and then I’ve got to head upstairs.

QUESTION: A follow-up on Korea?

QUESTION: A follow-up?

QUESTION: Still on Korea?

MS NAUERT: Hold on.

QUESTION: One on North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay. Wait --

QUESTION: Follow-up, please?

MS NAUERT: Janne, hold on. Michelle, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Okay, just very quickly. Now that South Korea is apparently actively trying to broker some kind of meeting between U.S. and North Korea officials, is that something that the State Department would welcome?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, so I don’t want to get ahead of the Vice President. My job is not to make news while the Vice President is traveling in the region. That’s part of it. I can help facilitate some conversations about that. But let me highlight some of the things that he said about a potential meeting or whatever you want to call it.

He said, “We have no requested a meeting in North Korea, but if I have any contact with them in any context over the next two days, my message will be the same as it is here today: North Korea needs to once and for all abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions, and the pressure will continue on them economically and diplomatically until that is accomplished. The time has come for North Korea to abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile ambitions, set aside its long pattern of deception and provocation, and then, only then, can we begin to move forward to a peaceable outcome on the Peninsula.” Okay?

QUESTION: Words like that that he’s now said repeatedly while he’s on this trip --

MS NAUERT: Yeah?

QUESTION: -- how does that encourage the North Koreans to maybe want to move in the direction of diplomacy?

MS NAUERT: I think, Michelle, what we’re focused right now is having a successful Olympics. We are excited to have our athletes bring home the gold. We got some hats in the back with promoting the Olympics. They were trying to get me to wear a hat today; I said no.

QUESTION: Heather --

MS NAUERT: So at any – in any event, Michelle, in all seriousness, we are looking forward to a successful Olympics. The fact that North and South were talking about the Olympics and they are participating under one flag is something that people might expect two countries, neighboring countries to perhaps do together. But I’m not going to get away – away in any of that.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS NAUERT: Last question. I have to go. Janne.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. North Korean Kim Jong-un’s sister, Kim Yo-jong, will come to Seoul tomorrow using Kim Jong-un’s own airplane. And do you know that Kim Yo-jong’s name on the U.S. sanctions list. Is it exceptional or how did you allow this?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, here’s what I can say about that, that the United States and the Republic of Korea are closely coordinating and having conversations about all of this. The sanctions that you’re referring to, we are confident that the Republic of Korea is working in conjunction with the United Nations to handle whatever waivers might be necessary for that. We are not going to get involved in that. We would leave that to the Republic of Korea.

QUESTION: But there are too many exceptions to do, so I was wondering --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to comment on that. Okay? Thanks, everybody. We’ve got to --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: We’ve got to wrap it up, because I have to get upstairs for somethings that’s – we’ll get it next time, okay? Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:10 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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - February 06, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





February 6, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE



DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY'S TRAVELS



TURKEY



NORTH KOREA



SOUTH KOREA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS/REGION



IRAQ



SYRIA



AFGHANISTAN/PAKISTAN



POLAND



IRAN



TURKEY



RUSSIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:40 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Hi, everybody. How are you? Good to see you. I didn’t know that you were here today. I thought there was no one from the AP, and I thought, where do we start when we don’t have somebody with the AP? And here you are. (Laughter.) We were just having that debate back there.

Good afternoon, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Great to see you all. I’d like to start this briefing today with a colleague of mine from the Department of Defense. Amber Smith is over here, and she has some information to bring you, and then we’ll take a couple of your questions, if you do have questions, about this particular initiative that she’s going to be announcing.

She is the deputy assistant secretary of defense for outreach. She’s joining us today to discuss the DOD’s campaign called This is Your Military. It’s a new DOD initiative aimed at connecting the American public with the military by showing them a unique view into the lives of those who are currently serving our country.

We will highlight, and she will highlight, the hard work of the 7,000 veterans who currently are employed by the Department of State. The initiative will focus on our Marine security guards who protect our embassies worldwide, the National Guard and the reservists, and the approximately 7,000 veterans that the State Department employs around the world. DOD will produce videos to be released as part of an initiative that showcases the National Guard, reservists, veteran success stories who work with the Department of State.

Amber is a senior advisor to the Secretary of Defense for matters related to strategic outreach, community relations, stakeholder engagement, entertainment series, and special outreach events. She also coordinates digital and social media. She’s also very humble; she was a Kiowa pilot, and she served in both Iraq and Afghanistan for our country. So she was in the military; now she serves as a civilian, much like many of our State Department colleagues who serve here in a civilian capacity. And of course, then we have our colleagues who serve in the Marine Corps protecting our embassies.

So with that, I’ll introduce you to Amber, and then we’ll go ahead with the regular briefing. Amber, thanks.

MS SMITH: Thank you, Heather. Good afternoon. Today, fewer Americans have a direct connection to those who serve in the military. Research shows that the civ-military divide is continuing to expand, which threatens the viability and the sustainability of the all-volunteer force, which poses some long-term national security risks. This Is Your Military is a Department of Defense outreach initiative that will educate and inform the American public while introducing them – the less than 1 percent of Americans who are currently serving in the military – to the 99 percent who are not.

We also want to show how the military is relevant to Americans in their daily lives and for future generations, as well as how we are a force for good. We look forward to collaborating with the Department of State by highlighting the Marine security guards that protect our embassies worldwide, the National Guard, the reservists, and the nearly 7,000 veterans that the department employs around the world, who are all a part of the This Is Your Military story.

The initiative will showcase the real lives of those who are serving in the military and correct common misperceptions that exist today. We will encourage Americans to learn about the military’s missions, our capabilities, who is serving, and why they serve. Each month will focus on specific themes. We will release 10 to 15 videos per month on social media that give a behind-the-scenes look into military life. We will have increased coverage of live events as they relate to the military and will collaborate with our external partners to reach an audience that is not normally connected to the military.

We hope you will follow along at #KnowYourMil, @DoDOutreach, and knowyourmilitary.osd.mil.

I’ll take any questions if anybody has anything.

MS NAUERT: Any questions?

QUESTION: What’s the budget for this (inaudible)?

MS SMITH: So we’re using existing resources out of the Department of Defense public affairs outreach office. So we’re just realigning our efforts and tailoring our products to reach a different audience. So it’s all a part of the existing outreach office within the Department of Defense.

QUESTION: What are you going to spend on it?

MS SMITH: We don’t have a specific number. It’s existing resources as we use – that we get given in the budget every year.

QUESTION: And you’re working for Afghanistan? Could you please give me some details? Because Heather mentioned Afghanistan’s name, a program for Afghanistan.

MS SMITH: I think she was mentioning that I served in Afghanistan in the Army, but we’ll be highlighting service members who have served in Afghanistan or will serve in Afghanistan in the future as well.

MS NAUERT: Thanks, everybody.

MS SMITH: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Thanks, Amber. Thanks for coming across the river.

Okay. I’d like to start now by giving you an update on the Secretary’s trip to Latin America and also the Caribbean. The Secretary is in the region to promote a safe, prosperous, energy-secure, and democratic hemisphere. He’s also advocating for increased regional attention to the crisis in Venezuela. This morning in Peru he met with the president and also the foreign minister to discuss our strategic partnership, support for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela, and preparations for the 2018 Summit of the Americas.

The Secretary is now in Bogota, Colombia – he just landed a few minutes ago, as a matter of fact – where he will be meeting with the president and also the foreign minister and other senior officials from the government.

His focus is on the UN support – U.S. support for a just and lasting peace in Colombia, our partnership to address the surge in coca and cocaine production, and the peace accord. In addition, he’ll discuss the growing number of migrants from – pardon me, from Venezuela who fled due to humanitarian, political, and economic crisis in their country.

Tomorrow the Secretary will meet with the prime minister and foreign minister in Kingston, Jamaica, where he will be headed next. He will underscore the U.S. commitment to the Caribbean 2020 strategy and discuss energy security and Jamaica’s successful economic reform efforts.

In addition to that, the Vice President, as many of you know, is on his way to Japan today. The Vice President will lead the U.S. presidential delegation to the Winter Olympics in Korea to demonstrate U.S. commitment to the universal values of the Olympic Games and the values that they promote. Vice President Pence will attend the Opening Ceremony on February the 9th along with the Second Lady of the United States Karen Pence, Congressman Ed Royce, General Vincent Brooks, General James D. Thurman, our charge d’affaires from our embassy in Seoul Marc Knapper, and 2002 Olympic Gold Medalist Sarah Hughes. The Vice President looks forward to cheering on Team USA and the athletes and also the para-athletes representing our country and making America proud. He looks forward to personally congratulating the many young athletes who will bring medals back to their families and friends across this great land. His visit will further demonstrate the strength of the U.S.-ROK alliance and underscore the importance of the maximum pressure campaign all around the world against the DPRK and the regime. He will also remind the world of the humanitarian rights abuses – the humanitarian rights abuses that are well-documented.

We encourage all Americans traveling abroad to enroll in our Smart Traveler Enrollment Program – that is our STEP program – by visiting travel.state.gov, where they can also find useful travel information for the Olympics or in any other international destination they may be visiting.

And finally, I’d like to turn to Turkey, and that is where we’d like to say that the United States is deeply troubled by the February 1 rearrest by Turkish authorities of the Amnesty International Turkey chairman, Taner Kilic. He’s been in pretrial detention since June of 2017. We’re closely following his case along with those against other respected human rights defenders, journalists, civil society leaders, and opposition politicians whose ongoing prosecution under the state of emergency has chilled freedom of expression and raises serious concerns about respect for judicial independence and the due process protections enshrined in the Turkish constitution.

We call on the Turkish Government to end the protracted state of emergency, to release those detained arbitrarily under the emergency authorities, and to safeguard the rule of law consistent with Turkey’s own domestic and international obligations and commitments.

And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. I guess why don’t we start on the North Korea issue. Both the Secretary and the Vice President have suggested that if something sort of came about spontaneously in PyeongChang that it’s possible there could be some type of dialogue. And I’m curious; given that there’s not a State Department presence on that trip, what would that look like? How – how prepared is the Vice President – how far is he prepared to go, and what would be sort of the limitations for what they would discuss, if that were to happen?

MS NAUERT: So I can’t speak for the Vice President. I can’t speak for the White House. I can only say – well, a couple things. One, our charge d’affaires will be there as a part of the official delegation. Marc Knapper will be there. But there are no plans to meet with any North Korean officials during or after the Olympics; I want to be clear about that. There are no plans to do so. The Secretary and the Vice President said we’ll see what happens when we get to the Olympics and when he’s in the – when the Vice President is in the region.

There is no shift in U.S. policy regarding this. North Korea must, once and for all, abandon its desire for nuclear weapons and also for ballistic missiles. Do away with that desire, stop, and then perhaps we’d be willing to come to the table and have a conversation with them about it.

QUESTION: So when you say --

QUESTION: I have something else, but if you want to do North Korea, then we can circle back.

MS NAUERT: Go ahead. Okay.

QUESTION: But when you say we’ll see what happens, what does that dependent upon? Is it dependent upon North Korea’s behavior while at the Olympics? Or when you talk about a sustained show of no provocation, that seems like that would span a greater time than the Olympics anyway. So what are you waiting and seeing?

MS NAUERT: I can just tell you that that is what the Vice President said and that’s what the Secretary said, and we’re on the same page. So I’m not going to get ahead of any of the Vice President’s meetings that he’ll have in Japan or in South Korea or any of that. I’ll just let his words stand for themselves.

QUESTION: Well, could you explain maybe, like are they – what is it based on? “We’ll see what happens.” What happens with what?

MS NAUERT: Yep, I’m going to leave it. I’m going to leave it at that with what the Vice President, also the Secretary, had to say. Okay.

QUESTION: But Heather, do you mean that the U.S. and the Vice President would consider a demand from the North Koreans to have a meeting?

MS NAUERT: I’ve just said we have --

QUESTION: I mean, they’re not asking --

MS NAUERT: We have no plans to do so, and our policy hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: But they would consider a demand from the North Koreans to meet?

MS NAUERT: I have no specifics and we’ve been given no specifics on any individuals. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather, if I’m not mistaken, if Vice President Pence were to have some kind of dealings with the North Korean on this trip, he would be the second-highest U.S. – serving U.S. Government official ever to have done so. The highest was Bill Clinton in the fall of 2000. Why on Earth would you want the second-ranking official in the U.S. Government to meet with a country with which you have so many disagreements? Why would you start with your number-two official; why wouldn’t you just rule that out?

MS NAUERT: We have no plans to meet with North Korea during the Olympics or after the Olympics. We have no plans to do so.

QUESTION: Right, but you haven’t ruled it out. In fact, you very clearly dangled the possibility by failing to rule it out. And I still don’t understand why you would want or even be willing to entertain the possibility of the number-two official in the U.S. Government meeting with North Koreans, given how many disagreements you have.

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get ahead of the Vice President and his meetings. The Vice President has a full series of meetings both in Japan and in the Republic of Korea, and I’m not going to get ahead of those. So I’ll leave it at that. Okay?

Okay. Go right ahead. Hi.

QUESTION: Say, Heather, given that it appears to be a message since both gentlemen said – used exactly the same wording, is the State Department considering sending out someone from EAP just to have someone on site to give advice just in case it could come in handy in any way?

MS NAUERT: Not that I’m – not that I am aware of. Okay.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

QUESTION: South Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Let’s – what did you have? Anything else on DPRK, South Korea, something?

QUESTION: Yes, please.

QUESTION: South Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Do you have a comment or reaction to the video posted by Sol Kim, the son of Tony Kim, one of the Americans who’s been detained in North Korea? And also, do you know that his family is saying that the last contact had with them was in June? Can you confirm that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So the video that you’re referring to is of an American who’s been detained in North Korea. And this is a good reminder to all Americans that you should not go to North Korea; it is not a safe place to go to. The safety and the wellbeing of American citizens is one of our top, top issues at the State Department. You may recall last year that our Ambassador Yun, Ambassador Joe Yun, had visited with three Americans when he was in North Korea and was able to visit them. Mr. Kim is one of them that he was able to see. That is the last time that we have made contact with Mr. Kim. From our understanding here, that is the last time that either the United States or Sweden, our protecting power there since we don’t have diplomatic relations with North Korea, has been able to see these three Americans who are being detained. Okay.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Yeah, sure. Hi, Said.

QUESTION: Yeah, sure. On Gaza. I know I asked you last week, but the situation has deteriorated so bad since then. There is a disturbing article in today’s Post that says, who’s responsible for electricity in Gaza? And they’re suggesting that the regional powers – Israel, Egypt, including the PA, including you – should supply a direly needed power supply, because 10 hospitals have been basically closed or to a bare minimum. I wonder if you have any comment on that.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. We’ve certainly seen those reports about the situation and the electricity problems, which we’ve addressed here --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- in this briefing room before where people have had difficulty getting electricity for sustained periods of time, including hospitals, which, obviously, they desperately need that electricity. It’s a topic that Jason Greenblatt, the President’s special envoy handling Middle East peace negotiations, discussed at length just about a week ago when he was visiting Brussels.

We are calling upon the international community to sit down and have conversations about this to come up with some sort of a resolution, because it’s clear that the people of Gaza continue to suffer and it’s largely of the hands of Hamas, because Hamas has the authoritarian rule over that area. They’ve consistently prevented the development of major electricity and water projects in Gaza. That has been a persistent problem. They’ve been refusing to pay the Palestinian Authority for services that it already provides. Obviously, a tremendous problem.

We’re glad that the Palestinian Authority has decided to restore previous levels of electricity to Gaza, but the electricity is simply not enough. So it’s something we’re watching carefully and that Jason Greenblatt spoke to about a week ago.

QUESTION: I understand, but the power is supplied by Egypt and Israel. Would you call on them to perhaps supply more power as needed?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I’m not going to speak for those other governments, but we do see that there needs to be some sort of an international solution to this because, clearly, the way it’s working right now is just not working.

QUESTION: Now, on Israel and Egypt, one last question. There were reports this past weekend that the Israeli Air Force has been active bombing along ISIS bases and so on in Sinai. Do you have – can you confirm that they are?

MS NAUERT: I can’t. I’d have to refer you to the Israeli Government for that. Okay? All right.

Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi, how are you? Iraqis – prominent Iraqi figures are calling now for the U.S. to leave. One was a spokesman for the Badr Organization, which includes the head of the Popular Mobilization Forces, and they said this should be done as a collaboration between the Iraqi and U.S. Governments. The Kata’ib Hizballah, one of the Popular Mobilization Forces, and headed by a terrorist, has threatened force against U.S. troops to make them leave. What is your response to that?

MS NAUERT: We are in Iraq to defeat ISIS. We are also there, in Iraq, at the invitation of the Iraqi Government. We will stay there as long as the Iraqi Government wants us there to not only continue to help maintain the peace, but also assist with stabilization projects. So threats aside, we’re there at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that political pressures could cause the Iraqi Government to ask you to leave?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get ahead of the situation. We have a very good relationship with both the prime minister and also with those in the north as well.

QUESTION: And if I could follow up on your comments on Turkey --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- when you called for – you’re troubled by the Turkish arrests and you called for an end to the state of emergency. The – a – the co-leader of the Democratic Regions Party in Diyarbakir, a prominent political figure, criticized Turkey’s assault in – on Afrin, and he was arrested today. What is your comment? He would be included among these arrests that you deplore?

MS NAUERT: Laurie, I’m not aware of the details of that, so I just don’t want to comment on something I don’t have any information on.

QUESTION: But in general, you oppose any arrests for free speech?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have – I don’t have the information on that, but you know, I think, our position on the importance of free speech is well documented. But I hesitate to comment on your particular question because I don’t know the details.

Okay, anything else on Iraq?

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: Syria?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Let’s go to Syria. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi. Just to follow up on your statement about the chemical weapons, Syrian chemical weapons. Given that Russia is blocking the U.S. attempts at the United Nations for a unified international reaction, what are the – your options? What other options are there?

MS NAUERT: Well --

QUESTION: And is there a military option on the table, as General Mattis hinted last week?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m never going to get into potential military options. We have a lot of options, certainly, that are on the table. What you are referring to is Russia’s continued steps to foil attempts at the United Nations Security Council to be able to hold parties responsible who are responsible for chemical weapons attacks. We’ve seen Russia time and time again stand in the way of producing a new forum or a new group, like the Joint Investigative Mechanism, that assigns blame, that assigns culpability for a chemical weapons attack. So Russia has been a real problem on this. You saw that the United States put out a statement – we did just yesterday evening, as did Ambassador Haley – on the very same matter.

This is part of the reason why Secretary Tillerson went to Paris just over a week ago. Secretary Tillerson and 25 or 26 other countries signed on to a document that is – would establish or would work to potentially establish a new mechanism that could assign culpability, assign blame for the use of the chemical weapons attacks. So I think we’re going in two parallel – two parallel movements, one with the international community – that meeting that came out of Paris – and then two – and we’ll wait for the French; I believe they have the lead on setting up any additional meetings in the future, but we anticipate that there will be meetings sometime in the near future. And then there’s the path at the United Nations.

So I don’t want to get ahead of Ambassador Haley and anything that she’s working on there, but I know that the Russian attempts to step in the way or the – Russia’s stepping in the way has been a major problem and has caused incredible concern on the part of the United States Government and many others as well.

QUESTION: You said that --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- assign culpability. How would you do that? How? I mean, what, you would rely on evidence, collected evidence, there would be an international body? I mean, how would you do it?

MS NAUERT: Those are the types of things that were suggested before, that there be an international, unbiased group of people who would be able to go in, collect evidence when it’s safe to do so – that has been part of the problem in the past – and they can – they will work all of that out.

So I don’t have all the details on what proposals might come forward. I think they’re still working through some of them themselves. But I know that Russia, one of the plans that it had tried to advance is giving them the ability to actually veto any results that would come out from this body. So that obviously doesn’t make sense. We need to have an international and impartial group.

Okay? Anything else on Syria?

QUESTION: Just one on South Korea.

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: As you point out in that statement, there have been six of these incidents in a month’s time. So obviously the threat of action, say, at the UN or elsewhere hasn’t been working. The U.S. says in this statement that these incidents must stop. So is this to be seen as a warning of, say, military action being the next step?

MS NAUERT: We have taken military action before. You are all very familiar with the steps that our government took to do that, and this is something – we’re watching the situation. We’re very concerned about it. When you have six attacks in a month, that is a tremendous concern not just to the United States, but the entire world as well. But I’m not going to – I’m not going to forecast any action that may or may not be taken.

QUESTION: Are you issuing a warning to the Syrians?

MS NAUERT: Look, I think I – I think I’ve been clear.

QUESTION: No, I’m --

MS NAUERT: We put out two very strongly worded statements about the use of chemical weapons, and I’ll just leave it at that. Okay? I think I’d refer you back to those statements.

QUESTION: Heather, the kind of body that you’re describing that we’re in discussions to try to form sounds very similar to the joint investigative mechanism that clearly failed, and clearly was susceptible to Russia’s influence at the end. So I realize it’s still in discussion, but is there something that is fundamentally different that would prevent just that situation repeating itself?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think what would be different is that we have 25, 26 countries signing on to this agreement. But again, that – the French are spearheading this, so I just have to refer you to the French for more information.

QUESTION: Well, so these strongly worded statements, should they be seen as some kind of final warning by Syria or by --

MS NAUERT: Those would be your words, “final warning.” I’m not going to go there. I’m not going to parse the words about that, but the United States is tremendously concerned about this as is the world. Okay?

All right, let’s move on.

QUESTION: Iran?

QUESTION: South Korea?

QUESTION: To Poland?

MS NAUERT: Okay, let’s go on to Afghanistan. We’ll come back to you. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi Heather. After the Pakistan attack, Afghan delegation prepared some documents on evidence to show to Pakistan authority. And for the first time, Pakistani authority accepted that – they are – they blamed themselves almost. And after that, Pakistan delegation came to Afghanistan to discuss about peace process or something like that, but still it didn’t work. Pakistani army shooting rockets against – towards Afghanistan. What do you think – although President Trump said they are not able to talk again with the Taliban regarding peace process in Afghanistan?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think what the President was saying – and our Deputy Secretary John Sullivan was just on Capitol Hill where he was testifying about our strategy along with one of his DOD counterparts about our strategy in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. What the President was talking about, what our Deputy Secretary was talking about, is that clearly there are elements of the Taliban that are not willing or not interested in sitting down to have successful peace negotiations right now. When you’ve seen the horrific terror attacks that have taken place, specifically in Kabul, what – 130 people or more died within the last two weeks alone. Civilians, including Save the Children – an attack taking place there is despicable and deplorable.

In terms of those attacks, I just want to say that it illustrates how barbaric the Taliban can be. And we hope that Afghanistan will get to the point where the Taliban wants to sit down and have a talk – have talks for peace and reconciliation, but it has to be an Afghan-led peace process.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS NAUERT: All right. Let’s move on to Poland.

QUESTION: Yeah, on Poland. I saw the statement the Secretary issued just before the briefing. In this statement, you don’t repeat the warning about consequences and impact on U.S.-Polish strategic relations that you issued last week. Does it mean that you don’t see this legislation having such kind of impact anymore?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. The legislation is something that we’ve been following very carefully. Our Assistant Secretary Wess Mitchell has been engaged in a lot of conversations over the past week with his counterparts in Poland. We are disappointed by the president – President Duda’s announcement that he intends to sign that legislation that would impose criminal penalties for attributing Nazi crimes to the Polish state. The law, which we understand will be referred to Poland’s constitutional tribunal once signed, adversely affects freedom of speech and also academic inquiry.

The United States wants to reaffirm its position. Terms like “Polish death camps” we understand are both painful and they’re also misleading, but we also believe in the freedom of speech and the freedom to have academic freedom so that people can learn about what really happened. Historical inaccuracies, such as calling things “Polish death camps,” they affect our ally Poland greatly, but that has to be debated and handled in a manner in which you have free and open education and discussion and dialogue about that. But we continue to have conversations with the Polish Government about all this.

QUESTION: And do you think that this legislation could have impact on the U.S.-Polish relationships or not?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get ahead of what could happen in the future.

QUESTION: Yes, but this is last week.

MS NAUERT: But look, I just want to say that we’ve made our concerns clear.

QUESTION: Heather, what message --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Marcin.

QUESTION: -- are you trying to send to Warsaw now, because there was this warning from last week, the Secretary is talking about his disappointment or the disappointment of the United States now. So what is the message you are trying to send, and what is the next thing you would expect from the authorities in Warsaw?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. And some of these will fall under private diplomatic conversations. Some of these conversations could be firm because there is a very real concern on our part, and I think we’ve made our concerns very clear. But some of these are going to be private conversations because we see that we can best effect change when we have those types of private conversations.

QUESTION: But this conversation will continue, as I understand?

MS NAUERT: Yes, this will continue. What’s your name? Hi.

QUESTION: Magda Sakowska.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Nice to see you. Yes. Okay.

QUESTION: Iran, going back to --

MS NAUERT: Let’s move on.

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: China, Egypt.

QUESTION: Caribbean.

QUESTION: Syria.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Caribbean?

QUESTION: Sure.

MS NAUERT: Oh, let’s go to the Caribbean.

QUESTION: All right.

MS NAUERT: It’s February. Let’s go to the Caribbean.

QUESTION: You’re going to regret that.

MS NAUERT: I know, right? (Laughter.) That’s what I’m wondering. Oh, wait a minute.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about Leandro Rizzuto, Jr., the ambassador nominee to Barbados who has a history of spreading baseless conspiracy theories about Senator Ted Cruz’s wife, among others. Senator Ben Sasse is suggesting very strongly he will try to block that nomination of someone that he says wears tinfoil hats. Does the administration stand behind his nomination?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I know he was a nominee put forward by the White House. I’ve not had the opportunity to meet him at this point. I’m not sure what process he is in the overall nominee process, but he hasn’t been through the Senate yet, hasn’t been through confirmation. And when there is a nominee who’s named, we try not to comment on that because that person is a nominee.

QUESTION: It seems like this is kind of a trend right now, between him and the nominee for the UN’s migration agency, who has said that Islam teaches its followers to perpetrate terrorist attacks; the nominee for the deputy perm rep at the UN who has praised far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos; and of course, we remember our situation with Ambassador Hoekstra. I mean, the State Department is obviously intimately involved in vetting some of these people as they’re being considered. Is there a problem with the vetting process?

MS NAUERT: I think there’s probably always more that can be done when we look at individuals, and I’m speaking just broadly. There’s probably always more that can be done but --

QUESTION: Like extreme vetting, maybe? (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: Cute, Michele.

QUESTION: I don’t recall similar things coming up for the vast majority of nominees in prior administrations. You don’t generally --

MS NAUERT: I wasn’t working – I wasn’t working in this kind of position before that --

QUESTION: No, but you --

MS NAUERT: -- so I can’t comment on that.

QUESTION: But you would have probably heard – you probably would have heard of them if there had been, and there have not been a lot of them. So the question isn’t whether more can be done. The question is why doesn’t this administration do more? Or is it in fact the administration’s desire to put forward people who have a record of saying such things to represent the United States abroad?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything for you on that, Arshad. I’m sorry. I can just refer you back to the White House for some of its nominees. Okay?

QUESTION: More Caribbean?

QUESTION: Can you tell us what – does Tillerson currently get, like, veto authority over nominees for ambassadorships the President wants to put forward?

MS NAUERT: I think the White House will put forward names. Sometimes we will have our career people, as you well know. Sometimes we have our charges who are in charge who conceivably could become the next ambassador to a particular post. But the White House and the State Department work on these matters, and they always work in conjunction with one another on that.

QUESTION: But do things like this – I mean, this guy was tweeting things to Mitt Romney like “Satan has a hold of you,” and “God will not forgive you what you did.” Doesn’t this embarrass the State Department?

MS NAUERT: Michele, I don’t have anything for you on that, okay? I don’t have everybody’s tweets under the sun in front of me. Okay?

QUESTION: North Korea?

QUESTION: Iran?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: Thanks. Baquer Namazi was sent back to jail today in – they cut short his medical leave and his family says that it’s tantamount to a death sentence. I wonder what your reaction is and whether the Trump administration – it wants to have a dialogue with Iran about these hostages.

MS NAUERT: We were incredibly disappointed to have learned the news that the Iranian Government put him back in prison. Let me just remind people, or perhaps if some of you haven’t heard about his case before, he is an 81-year-old American citizen. His son also sits in Iranian prison – in the notorious Evin prison. We have been alarmed for some time at his declining health. We know that he’s in urgent need of sustained medical care. We’re deeply disappointed in the fact that he has been returned to prison. We’re concerned about his health. We call for his unconditional release from his unjust detention in Iran, and that renews our calling for all Americans who are being held in Iran and being held unjustly to be returned to the United States. That includes his son Siamak and Xiyue Wang and also Robert Levinson, who has been there for more than a decade.

QUESTION: His brother says that – I mean, Babak Namazi says his brother has been tortured in Iranian jail. He let that news out today. I wonder if you have heard that or have --

MS NAUERT: I had not heard that. I’m – that’s heartbreaking to hear that.

QUESTION: And is the U.S. ready to have some kind of dialogue with Iran about this?

MS NAUERT: Look, if we have the opportunity to have conversations, then we always bring up the safety and security of our Americans, especially our Americans who are being detained. We raise it with Iran at every opportunity. We will continue to do so until their cases are resolved. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather, do you think this suggests that maybe the State Department needs to have a more direct channel, something more than at the meetings of the – to discuss the JCPOA? Perhaps Secretary Tillerson emailing, speaking frequently with Mohammad Javad Zarif? Is there some problem here --

MS NAUERT: Well, Carol, I’m not going to make policy or make commitments on behalf of the Secretary. He will handle it the best way that he sees fit. But I think it’s pretty obvious that we have a number of Americans who have been detained there for quite some time, and we would like for them to come home. Iran should release those Americans. If Iran wants to be considered a part of the world, if they want to be respected by the world, that would be a good way of doing it.

QUESTION: And when you say you raise it at every case, I mean, the only contacts that I’ve seen have been at the JCPOA meetings.

MS NAUERT: Well, our contacts are extremely limited, as you well know. You all would be the first ones knocking on my door if you heard about any contacts. But when we do have the opportunity, we raise the issue of Americans who are being detained.

QUESTION: Heather, it’s been reported that Tom Shannon brought this up, spoke with the Iranians about this in Vienna in December. Can you confirm that that --

MS NAUERT: I’ve seen those reports. I can’t confirm any of that. Okay, all right.

QUESTION: Heather, a question about Russia, the START Treaty.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hold on. Let me just go to Ilhan right over here. Ilhan, hi.

QUESTION: Thank you. Hi, Heather. Just to follow up your topper on Turkey, a very strong-worded statement. There are reports today that Secretary Tillerson might go to Turkey. Do you think – first of all, if you can confirm it; and secondly, should we expect from Secretary Tillerson to voice similar concerns if he goes to Turkey?

MS NAUERT: If the Secretary were to go to Turkey – and we haven’t announced any travel or any plans just yet. When we do, I will certainly let you know if Turkey is on the itinerary. But if the Secretary were to go to Turkey, yes, that would be an issue that he would bring up, as we do on every occasion like that.

Okay, anything else? Okay.

QUESTION: On South Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just since the drop of the Mr. Victor Cha as the candidate for the ambassador of the U.S. to the South Korea, do you have a new candidate for this post, and how far we still have to wait until that you announce that?

MS NAUERT: Well, first somebody has to be identified, and then they have to be vetted, and then they have to be nominated, and that can be sometimes a lengthy process. So I’d just have to refer you to the White House for any additional information on any appointments right now. But as I’ve said before, we have a terrific charge who’s in charge right there right now, and he’ll be there with the Vice President at the Olympics.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) within weeks or within months that we’ll be --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to put a timeline on it. We have to identify a candidate first.

Okay, go ahead, Said.

QUESTION: I wonder if you would comment on yesterday the START Treaty, START III, expired. The relations between the United States and Russia seem to be really – or tensions are very high, probably the worst they have been. I was wondering whether the Secretary of State has spoken to his counterpart, Russian counterpart, of late. The United States has decided to supply Finland, who’s not a NATO country but very close to Russia, with rockets and so on, so could you just update us on this relationship?

MS NAUERT: I can’t confirm what you just suggested about Finland. I don’t have any information on that. But February 5th – that was just yesterday – marked the date that the New START Treaty central limits would actually take effect. The United States and Russia have implemented New START for seven years now. We talked about this just last week. We met the treaty’s central limits in August of 2017, and we anticipate that Russia will meet its limits as well – for its agreements, I should say.

Okay. All right, guys, we’re going to have to wrap it up.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead, in the glasses.

QUESTION: Thank you. So yesterday China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that Secretary Tillerson has invited China’s State Councilor Yang Jiechi to visit the United States later this week. Do you have any detailed information on that? What kind of people will Mr. Yang meet with, and what concrete topics will they address? Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I can confirm for you that the Chinese Government has announced and we can confirm that the Chinese state councilor will visit Washington, D.C. later this week. He’s meeting with the Secretary and with other U.S. officials. I don’t have a full readout of who will be in that meeting or a manifest of who will be in that meeting, but they’ll be discussing many areas of mutual interest, including trade, human rights, and also the DPRK.

Okay. And we’re going to have to leave it at that, everybody. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:16 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.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - January 2, 2018

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





January 2, 2018











Index for Today's Briefing

LIBERIA



IRAN



IRAN/IRAQ



IRAN



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA



YEMEN/SAUDI ARABIA



PAKISTAN



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:32 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Hi, everybody. Happy New Year.

QUESTION: Happy New Year.

MS NAUERT: How’s everyone today?

QUESTION: Good.

MS NAUERT: Good. We have some visitors in the back. Hi, welcome to the State Department. Hope you’re all doing well. Where are you visiting from today?

QUESTION: I’m from UVA. I’m a virtual intern.

MS NAUERT: Oh, great.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Well, welcome.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Virtual intern.

QUESTION: Virtual intern.

MS NAUERT: I didn’t know we had those things.

QUESTION: We’re virtual correspondents.

MS NAUERT: That means you can wear your pajamas and drink beer and work at the same time.

QUESTION: Yes, ma’am.

MS NAUERT: Yes. Okay. Well, welcome. Glad to have you.

Happy 2018, everyone. Great to be back here with you again; looking forward to working with you for another year.

The United States – and this is what we’d like to start out with today on – we’d like to congratulate the people of Liberia and the President-elect Weah on the peaceful, well-executed final round of voting on December the 26th. Many people around the world know that the president-elect is one of Africa’s most talented soccer stars, and we want to wish him much success in this new role, just as much success as he had during his playing days. We also would like to thank Vice President Joseph Boakai for his positive campaign and for his years of honorable service to Liberia.

This election represents a milestone in Liberia’s democracy. It marks the first peaceful transition from one democratically elected leader to another in over 70 years and further solidifies democratic trend in West Africa. The National Elections Commission managed an orderly, transparent elections process, while Liberia’s political parties, security forces, civil society organizations played a critical role in ensuring a peaceful, fair, and credible contest.

We remain committed to our longstanding partnership with Liberia and look forward to working with the President-elect to advance our mutual interests and expanding trade and economic growth, ensuring continued security, including combatting terrorism, and promoting global health security.

I know you have a lot of questions, so let’s get started. Hi, Matt.

QUESTION: Right. Hello. Happy New Year.

MS NAUERT: Happy New Year. Thank you.

QUESTION: Let’s start with Iran.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: The ambassador to the United Nations just gave a press conference at which she said that the U.S. is calling for an emergency meeting of the Security Council on the situation there. Can you explain exactly why? What do you – what would you like the Security Council to do or to say about the situation in Iran?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think that many nations around the world are watching what is happening in Iran and watching it very closely. The United States is. Certainly our allies and partners are – France, Germany, the UK. You’ve heard a lot from them in recent days expressing their concerns, just like we’ve expressed our concerns about a crackdown on human rights. We are keeping an eye closely on that. That includes arresting people for peacefully protesting.

So that is an area of major concern of ours, and I think that that is a concern of the United Nations. I don’t want to get ahead of what might happen at the United Nations and what Ambassador Haley and her counterparts will be calling for, but I think it’s an issue that the world shares a concern about, and that is the ability for people to be able to speak openly and freely without fear of imprisonment.

In addition to that, the government had claimed that the JCPOA was basically the elixir, the fix for its economic problems. We have not seen that fix made. We have seen the economy stagnant there; in some situations, for some families, it has become worse than it was before. Many people there will complain that their paychecks have not been made, that they’ve not gotten a paycheck, that their paychecks are late – all of that. So people have a right to be concerned about the government’s treatment of its citizenry, and so they’re speaking out, and they’re brave in doing so.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, then never mind about the UN, if you’re going to leave that to them as to what actually the Security Council will do. What is this administration in Washington – what is this administration doing?

MS NAUERT: Well, we’re watching the situation very closely. We are expressing our support, as we have many occasions before, for the Iranian people, understanding that it is brave, that they are courageous in speaking out and speaking out publicly and forcefully. And these are folks who are the working class. You’re seeing this in many towns across the country, people going out at their own risk, at their own peril, speaking out about their concerns. And as Americans, we can all support the right of a freedom of expression, something we support, and they – we are watching them do just that.

We’re talking with our allies as they express their very same concerns about the situation there.

QUESTION: When you say that you’re watching it very closely, monitoring, as everyone knows quite well, the U.S. doesn’t have an embassy in Iran, it doesn’t have any – at least no publicly known presence there. So how exactly are you following the situation? News, social media?

MS NAUERT: Well, Matt, this would go back to how we watch many nations when things are going on, especially when we don’t have a presence there. We get our information from a variety of sources. Some of that can come from NGOs. Some of that can come from media reports. Obviously, that’s a little more difficult right now because the government has clapped – clamped down not only on media but, as we’ve seen, social media too. We expect and we certainly hope that people will be able to access social media and speak freely there, just like we’ve seen them speak on the streets.

QUESTION: Right. Last --

MS NAUERT: So we’ll get that from a variety of sources. Some of that will include intelligence, our partners on the ground, and many other nations as well.

QUESTION: Last one. So you are, in fact, calling on the Government of Iran to restore any social media that has been – that may have been blocked?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think that would certainly be an important thing for them to do. We support a freedom of the press here in the United States. We support the right of voices to be heard. And when a nation clamps down on social media or websites or Google or news sites, we ask the question, “What are you afraid of?” What are you afraid of? We support the Iranian people and we support their voices being heard.

QUESTION: And are you considering sanctions?

MS NAUERT: We don’t get ahead of sanctions, but that is one toolkit, a couple things that we have in a very broad and wide toolkit. It’s – there are a range of options that we certainly have going forward. And that’s why I say we are watching reports very carefully of any potential human rights abuses of these protesters who are protesting peacefully.

Okay. Hi, Andrea. Nice to see you.

QUESTION: Hi, Happy New Year to you.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: Is there – first of all, is there anything that the U.S. can do to help restore access to social media to the Iranian people?

MS NAUERT: Not that I’m aware of. I mean look, I’m not a tech expert. There are lots of ways that people can get information through different sources and different apps and all of that, but I’m not aware of anything particularly that we as a government are able to do. But we’re watching it carefully.

QUESTION: And speaking of social media, one of the President’s first tweets on this was – he said change is needed.

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Is he calling for regime change?

MS NAUERT: No, I think what the President is talking about is exactly what the Iranian people are saying, that they want change. They want the government to start taking care of them. We’ve heard from some of the protesters their concerns about that nation’s money being spent on exploits in other countries – Syria, Iran’s support for Hizballah, Iran’s support for weapons being sent around the world – as opposed to spending that money on its own people. So I think when the President calls for change, he’s calling for the Iranian Government to make changes for its own people and the same thing that the Iranian people are calling for.

QUESTION: And is there a risk that some experts are expressing about modulating the tone in that the President’s tweets, if they are too strong in solidarity with the protesters, could backfire, could support the hardliners, could lead to a crackdown?

MS NAUERT: The Iranian regime is always going to come up with reasons to try to claim that other governments are responsible for some of their own problems at home, that other governments are responsible for their own people speaking out. This is not the first time that we’ve seen the Iranian people speak out, speak out about their concerns of their treatment under their regime. We saw that almost 10 years ago. We’re seeing it once again – the issues slightly different, but they remain the same.

Okay.

QUESTION: So when you say that the U.S. has expressed support for these protesters, what is it that the U.S. wants them to do or accomplish?

MS NAUERT: This is largely the same as we would say in any country, whether it’s Venezuela and people conveying their concerns about the humanitarian situation in Venezuela, in other countries where people protest. We want them to have the right to speak freely, to peacefully protest, just as people do in the United States, and to be able to do that without fear of retribution.

QUESTION: So does the U.S. want them to continue to protest?

MS NAUERT: Look, that’s up to the Iranian people. We are not going to tell the Iranian people what to do. But we do believe that if Iranian people are going to peacefully protest that they should be allowed to do so.

QUESTION: Could you explain something --

QUESTION: You mentioned working with allies but in the --

MS NAUERT: Okay, last one there.

QUESTION: -- in the past couple of days I know that there has been this work among several to craft this strongly worded joint statement condemning Iran. But that hasn’t happened yet, and it seems like there were a number of problems. Can you talk about the status of that? And if there can’t even be consensus on a strongly worded statement --

MS NAUERT: Michele, I think you’re getting way too far ahead on this one, okay? A lot of people want to see statements. We’re having very good conversations with our allies. We have seen that we are in agreement with our allies – with France, with Germany, with the UK as well. You’ve read their statements. Boris Johnson, for example, calling on all concerned to refrain from violence and international obligations on human rights to be observed. The French foreign minister, a number of victims of arrest, tremendous concern of theirs, “The right to protest freely is a fundamental right.” Those are the same things that we are calling for.

I’m not going to adhere – I don’t think the U.S. Government and the other governments are going to adhere to any kind of arbitrary timeline for getting something on paper. I have to remind you all yesterday was a holiday. This is our first day back from a holiday. There is no disagreement where we stand.

QUESTION: You talked about --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, Arshad.

QUESTION: Hey. You talked about your concerns about human rights. Are you calling for the Iranian security forces to exercise restraint in their treatment of protesters?

MS NAUERT: Yes, absolutely. I mean, anytime you have people out there who are protesting peacefully – and that’s what we’ve seen. We’ve seen people holding up signs. We’ve seen people walking through the streets. That has been the primary kind of protests that we have seen. Security forces – we would always urge them to use restraint, use restraint, to not overstep the bounds and harm protesters unnecessarily.

QUESTION: And do you think that they have – because you’re aware, obviously, of the number of deaths and the increasing number of deaths – do you believe that they have – any of the Iranian security forces have used excessive force thus far?

MS NAUERT: Arshad, I’m obviously not there on the ground, so I’m not at liberty to characterize what has actually happened and whether there are instances of excessive force that were used or not. But I can tell you, we’re following this carefully.

QUESTION: And one more for me on this. You mentioned 2009. One of the challenges that the administration faced, that the former U.S. administration faced in 2009 after the elections, was one of not tarnishing the protesters by too warm an American embrace. Do you see any concerns that in your statements of support for peaceful protest, you may in fact be hurting the protesters themselves by ginning up government opposition to them? And might it be better to be more restrained in your own comments?

MS NAUERT: Look, I think any time you look at people who are protesting in any nation around the world, who are protesting because they want greater economic freedom, because they want to be paid on time, because they want their government to stop spending money on terrorism and start spending their money at home – any time that people are willing to stand up in the face of an oppressive regime and have that conversation publicly, have that conversation publicly despite the potential threat, despite potentially being thrown in jail, we ought to support them. That is the right thing to do.

But to put this solely on America is not correct. You see France, you see the U.K., you see Germany and other nations standing up to support those protesters. I’m not aware of any other place in the world where we would actually look at it and say, oh, United States, don’t support those people; don’t support those people who want your encouragement. We hear from around the world other countries – Venezuela is a perfect example – when we have spoken out on their behalf or – let me back up – not on their behalf, but when we’ve spoken out in support of their voices being heard, they have said to us, “Thank you. Thank you, thank you, United States. We appreciate that support.”

Hi. Barbara.

QUESTION: Could you (inaudible) on --

QUESTION: Heather, one more question about this. You said that the nuclear agreement had not been the economic fix that the government said it would be. But Iranians – many Iranians say part of the reason for that is because the Trump administration has thrown the certainty of the deal in doubt, and so that contributes to economic confidence in the deal. And therefore, the support that the --

MS NAUERT: I can only point to many European --

QUESTION: Just – let – can I just finish question?

MS NAUERT: -- many European country – companies --

QUESTION: Yes. Let me just --

MS NAUERT: -- are still doing business with Iran, so --

QUESTION: Okay. I just want to finish my question --

MS NAUERT: -- they are able to do those deals.

QUESTION: So my question is: This sort of weakens the support they see from the United States on this factor. Is this going to – is this going to have any effect on the decision this month about whether to weigh the sanctions again, whether to decertify again?

MS NAUERT: This administration looks at Iran through a much broader lens than just the JCPOA. The administration is taking steps to fix its flaws. I’m not going to get ahead of what Congress is working on, but those conversations are taking place. And some of those negotiations are taking place between Republicans and Democrats and the White House to fix the fundamental flaws of the JCPOA so we can look at Iran through a broader lens than just the JCPOA and look at its destabilizing activities, as we talked about with Syria, in places like Yemen, you name it – Iran involved in some of those nefarious activities.

Hi, Said.

QUESTION: Can – can I take you to another place where there are protests and so on?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Wait, can we finish --

MS NAUERT: Wait.

QUESTION: -- finish Iran?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I have a question related to what you’ve been saying about Syria, Yemen, Iranian intervention in – outside its borders and its aggression. An envoy of Ayatollah Khamenei met yesterday with the head of the al-Nujaba militia in Iraq. It’s an Iraqi – part of the Hashd al-Shaabi, and Khamenei’s envoy praised its role in Iraq and Syria. What is your comment on that, particularly as you’ve just condemned Iranian involvement in Syria?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I’m not aware of that meeting, so I don’t want to comment – if that did even take place, so I just don’t want to comment on that.

QUESTION: It was in the Iranian press. I’d be happy to share it with you, because --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Well, I’m not going to necessarily believe the Iranian press, but I just am not going to comment on something --

QUESTION: How about the Iraqi press? You don’t see Iranian aggression in Iraq, like in Kirkuk?

MS NAUERT: Look, we have discussed many times our concerns about Iran’s activities. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: Just a very specific technical point on the sanctions and on the social media.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: One of the social media platforms that’s not available in Iran is Signal, and that’s a useful one because that’s an encrypted one. It’s one that activists or journalists, including myself, can use to communicate secretly. It’s not available in Iran not because it’s been blocked but because Google doesn’t provide one of the platforms which services this to Iranians because of the sanctions. Is Google overinterpreting the sanctions, or --

MS NAUERT: Dave, I have --

QUESTION: It’s an American company that could be providing a helpful tool to them.

MS NAUERT: I’m going to answer you as honestly as I can: I have no idea. I can connect you with some of our sanctions experts who might know more about Google and Signal and their relationship and how they operate or don’t operate in Iran. I’m afraid I just don’t have any information on that.

QUESTION: Without asking you to speak on behalf of the protesters, you do support their aims?

MS NAUERT: We support peaceful protest in Iran, in Venezuela, in other places.

QUESTION: Yeah, but – you – yeah, but do you support what these specific protesters are protesting?

MS NAUERT: Well, I can’t comment specifically on what every protester is calling for --

QUESTION: Well, the general theme.

MS NAUERT: -- but in general, when they ask for their voices to be heard, when they ask for a better economy, when they ask for the government to spend money on their own country as opposed to terror exploits overseas or in other countries, sure, we would certainly support that.

QUESTION: So when they say death to Khamenei, you would support that?

MS NAUERT: I – Matt, I’m not going to go – I’m not going to – see, that’s why you’re trying to trap me into something like that. I’m not going to go there.

QUESTION: No, I’m just trying to figure out, because --

MS NAUERT: That is not our policy, but we hear what the Iranian people are saying. And just like people in the United States can say things that are very inflammatory – and they’re allowed to say that here; the right to free speech – people say that in other countries as well. They have a right to have their opinions on that matter.

QUESTION: But one of the administrations – and this – not just this administration – a longtime U.S. policy goal has been for Iran to stop supporting Hizballah in Lebanon and, at least going back to 2014, to stop intervening in Syria. So when the protesters say get out of Lebanon, stop supporting Hizballah, get out of Syria, stop supporting Assad, you do agree with that, right?

MS NAUERT: Well, we certainly have expressed – and you know this – we’ve expressed our concerns many times about Iran’s activities in Syria, in Yemen, elsewhere. I mean, you’ve asked me numerous times here name the countries of concern that Iran is involved with and I have named those for you on many occasions. Iran, Yemen, Syria, you name it, where they’re --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Thanks, Laurie.

QUESTION: So as long as what the protesters are protesting – or as long as their message lines up with this – with the administration’s policy position, you support them?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I think you’re wrong there, and here’s why: because as a general matter we support peaceful protest, protests and conversations that may not always be convenient to the United States, that may not always be convenient to that host country. We talk about that. We talk about the right to free speech. We believe that that is a fundamental human right. Whether it’s here, whether it’s in Iran, whether it’s in Russia. You name the country – we support that free speech. You know that.

Okay.

QUESTION: Can we – can I take you just a bit further on what you’re saying? Do you support free --

MS NAUERT: All right, then we’ll move on, because we’re starting to get --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you support free speech for the Palestinians?

MS NAUERT: We support free speech. You know that.

QUESTION: And their right to protest?

MS NAUERT: And a right to protest.

QUESTION: And you get appalled when 15 and 16-year-old girls are taken in the middle of the night and punched and kicked and stand before a military court – do you condemn that?

MS NAUERT: Teenagers, young people, yes, absolutely.

QUESTION: Yes. I am talking about a very young teenage Palestinian, Ahed Tamimi, who was taken in the middle of the night. She stand – she stood before a military court yesterday with 12 charges and so on. Do you urge the Israelis to release the young teenager?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Said, I’m not going to have as much for you as you want on this particular situation. I’m a mom, you know, of small children. I think any parent watching could relate to concerns about the treatment of children. We believe that all individuals, especially children, should be treated humanely. They should be treated with respect for their human rights, their individual rights. I’m not going to have anything more for you on that. I’d have to refer you to the government.

QUESTION: But you support in principle that the Israelis ought to release 300 kids who are under the age of 16?

MS NAUERT: Said, I don’t have any information on that, so I just can’t confirm that that is the actual case.

QUESTION: Let me ask you a couple things on the Palestinian-Israeli issue. There was an – there is an article in The New York Times that says that the Israeli Government was emboldened by the U.S. recognition of Jerusalem, by all that transpired in the last couple weeks, to basically do what they did yesterday and basically annex the West Bank. What is your --

MS NAUERT: I’m afraid I don’t have anything for you on that at the --

QUESTION: You don’t have a position on this?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything for you on that particular report, okay?

QUESTION: And do you feel – okay.

MS NAUERT: I can get back to you and see if I have anything more.

QUESTION: On the – also, there was a vote on Jerusalem in the Knesset where they basically prevented – or they prevent the – any future government that would – that – there was a bill to prohibit any future government from ceding any parts of Jerusalem, contrary to international agreement. Do you agree with that?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Are you aware of that?

MS NAUERT: Restate it. Yes, I’m aware of that – of that Knesset vote.

QUESTION: Are you aware of the Jerusalem vote in the Knesset?

MS NAUERT: Yes, I am aware of that.

QUESTION: That actually prohibits any future Israeli government from ceding any parts of Jerusalem?

MS NAUERT: Okay, one of the most important things for this administration is to have – is to have peace talks between the various sides to get them to a place of peace. That has not changed. That position remains the same. And those conversations and those talks will continue. I’m not going to get ahead of some of those conversations.

QUESTION: Okay, my last question on this. Do you believe that Jerusalem ought to be a final status issue, as it’s always been?

MS NAUERT: We have always talked about final status negotiations and that being a part of the final status negotiation.

Okay, let’s move on.

QUESTION: Can we go to North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Well, hold on. Just one more on this issue. It has to do with this report about the ambassador in Tel Aviv, who is reported to have wanted the administration to stop calling the West Bank occupied. Without getting into internal government deliberations, does the administration still believe that the West Bank is occupied?

MS NAUERT: I can’t confirm that conversation or what --

QUESTION: I’m not asking you to. But do you still – does the administration believe that the West Bank is occupied by Israel?

MS NAUERT: I can only say that our position has not changed. Our position on that hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: Well, does that mean that – does that mean that you still regard the West Bank as being occupied?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I can just tell you our position hasn’t changed. I’m going to be very careful with the words because anything related to this region, as many others --

QUESTION: Exactly.

MS NAUERT: -- is extremely sensitive.

QUESTION: Exactly.

MS NAUERT: Our position has not changed, and I won’t budge from that.

QUESTION: Okay. At some point it would be nice to find out exactly what that position is. You shouldn’t be afraid – precisely because it is so sensitive, you shouldn’t be afraid, unless you’re embarrassed by what the policy is. Not you personally, but whoever. You shouldn’t be afraid to say what it is instead of just saying it hasn’t changed.

MS NAUERT: I don’t think – Matt, as you have seen, when America speaks about a matter, it is taken very seriously.

QUESTION: I know.

MS NAUERT: And so that is why it’s important for the United States to be careful with its words. And you may not get all the words that you were hoping to get, but I’m going to be careful with the words. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Well, does that include tweeting stuff about “little Rocket Man” and things like that?

MS NAUERT: Matt.

QUESTION: Be careful with your words? Or “fire and fury” is going to rain down on North Korea?

MS NAUERT: I’m not even going to go there, Matt. Okay?

QUESTION: If you’re saying that the position hasn’t changed, why won’t you just state the position?

MS NAUERT: Michele, the position hasn’t changed. I’m not going there, okay? You’ve got all --

QUESTION: Just – okay.

MS NAUERT: That’s it on that. Okay? Let’s move on.

QUESTION: Can we go to North Korea?

MS NAUERT: North Korea.

QUESTION: Do you have any response to the idea of direct talks between North and South Korea that have been raised, given that there’s the explicit idea that they would happen without preconditions, that they would just sort of – the South Koreans would be willing to talk about anything that North Korea wants to talk about?

MS NAUERT: I can tell you this: that we are close allies with the Republic of Korea. If ROK wants to sit down and have a conversation with the DPRK, that is certainly their choice. We look forward to our participation in the Winter Olympic Games. That certainly hasn’t changed. Our policy hasn’t changed. We are working toward a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. Our policy remains the same. If the Republic of Korea and if the DPRK want to have a conversation, that’s fine, but we aren’t going to necessarily believe that Kim Jong-un is sincere and is credible in his talks.

QUESTION: And did South Korea check with this administration before making that proposal to North Korea?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware if they did or not.

Okay, anything else on North Korea? Hi.

QUESTION: So will the U.S. be playing any sort of role if these border talks do happen?

MS NAUERT: Well, that would be a hypothetical, but I highly doubt it. Okay.

Hi, sir.

QUESTION: Also on North --

MS NAUERT: Tell me your name again.

QUESTION: Tianyi.

MS NAUERT: And you’re from?

QUESTION: Shenzhen Media Group.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Nice to see you again.

QUESTION: Nice to see you. So Kim Jong-un gave a New Year’s speech and he mentioned that the nuclear button will be used if North Korea’s security is threatened. So do you think it’s a signal of asking for peace, which meaning no threat, then no nuclear war at all?

MS NAUERT: We’ve heard his kind of rhetoric before, so it’s really nothing new. I often don’t comment on the comments of specific foreign leaders, so I’m not going to comment on that. But we’ve heard that kind of thing before and our policy remains the same. We remain committed to a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, and we hope that at some point we can get there.

Okay, Andrea.

QUESTION: A follow-up on that. Do you --

QUESTION: See, there’s a policy you don’t have a problem saying what it is even if it hasn’t changed, right? (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: You get an eye roll. Hi. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that? Do you think – does the administration think it is a good thing that President Moon has responded and is willing to hold talks with the North and that those talks will not include the United States? Are direct talks between North and South a positive or a negative?

MS NAUERT: This is a situation we’re still just assessing right now. The comments were just made yesterday. So I don’t want to get ahead of any official position that we might take on that, but we’re assessing the situation.

QUESTION: Well, yesterday is a long – I mean, 24 hours is a long time to assess whether --

MS NAUERT: It’s a long time in TV news.

QUESTION: -- whether --

MS NAUERT: That’s where it – that’s where it’s a long time.

QUESTION: No, it’s a long time in diplomacy to assess whether direct talks between North and South are a good thing or a bad thing.

MS NAUERT: Well, look, I stated our position so far, and right now, if the two countries decide that they want to have talks, that would be certainly their choice. We have a very strong relationship with the Republic of Korea, as we do with Japan. We have had a strong alliance with them for many, many decades. That hasn’t changed. Kim Jong-un may be trying to drive a wedge of some sort between the two nations, between our nation and the Republic of Korea. I can assure you that that will not happen, that will not occur. We are very skeptical of Kim Jong-un’s sincerity in sitting down and having talks. Our policy hasn’t changed, the South Koreans’ policy has not changed, that we both support a denuclearized Korean Peninsula, as, frankly, does the world.

QUESTION: But is this successfully driving a wedge in that these bilateral talks will not include the U.S.?

MS NAUERT: I don’t think so, Andrea. And again, I’m not going to get ahead of that. Okay?

QUESTION: Yemen?

MS NAUERT: Hi, Rich.

QUESTION: Can I just – could I just get a follow-up on the --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Hi, Dave.

QUESTION: -- on North Korea, though? The goal of your maximum pressure campaign was the diplomatic and economic isolation of the North. Now the North is sitting down with its neighbor and your close ally --

MS NAUERT: Well, they’re not. They’re not. I mean, that’s an idea that’s being discussed.

QUESTION: Well, that both sides have discussed.

MS NAUERT: So I’m not going to get too into that, but --

QUESTION: If they do sit down, that’s a blow for maximum pressure, no?

MS NAUERT: Again, that is a hypothetical. What I can tell you that the United States – and we just saw the UN Security Council resolution that passed a week or so ago. I’m losing track of time with the holiday. But the third --

QUESTION: It’s 2018. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: -- the third unanimous UN Security Council resolution where countries agreed to sanction North Korea, concerns about North Korea, and concerns about the money and what it’s doing and its activities of ballistic weapons, and also advanced nuclear tests.

So we’re all on the same page. We’re all still working toward and working forward with our maximum pressure campaign. Okay?

QUESTION: Can I ask about Yemen?

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we stay here real quick on --

QUESTION: On North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Ambassador Haley said that you’re – I forget exactly how she phrased it – hearing signals or suggestions that the North may be preparing for another ballistic missile test. Is that an ICBM test?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information on that.

QUESTION: So you’re not hearing those same signals?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information on that. Some of that might – may be an intelligence matter. She’s the ambassador to the United Nations, I am not, so I am not aware of any of that personally. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. So if now is not the time for the U.S. to be directly talking to North Korea, does that mean that it’s not the right time for a U.S. ally like South Korea to be talking to them?

MS NAUERT: I think I’ve answered that question, okay. Anything else on North Korea?

QUESTION: Can we go to Yemen?

QUESTION: Pakistan?

QUESTION: Yemen, real quick.

MS NAUERT: Okay, we’ll go to Yemen.

QUESTION: Yes. A couple weeks ago, the United States called on the coalition led by Saudi Arabia to ease their blockade and their siege of ports and airports and so on. But the last week has seen an intensification in bombing and more civilian deaths and so on. I wonder what – where are you with that? Because that’s been – two weeks have passed, or more than that, since you called on the Saudis and the Arab coalition to ease their blockade.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So not only have we called on them to ease the blockade, we continue to call on them to be very judicious in their use of airpower – also, though, however, understanding that they have – the Saudis – have a legitimate concern about their own security at home. So it’s a delicate balance of sorts.

You know – you and I have talked about this many times – that Yemen is an area that we are deeply concerned about. The medical crisis there, the humanitarian crisis there. The State Department, USAID, and others have put a lot of money, time, and resources into the problem there and into trying to improve the situation there. I’ll check with some of our experts to see if I have anything more for you on that, though.

Okay? Okay. Pakistan.

QUESTION: Heather, why did the administration choose this week to announce it’s withholding aid from Pakistan?

MS NAUERT: Actually, no, we didn’t. That was an announcement that came out back in August, and for some reason, people got interested in it again. But that is not a new announcement that we would hold back on that money.

QUESTION: What is the condition of the U.S.-Pakistan relationship right now, do you think?

MS NAUERT: Pakistan is an important partner. We have a lot of issues in that region. Pakistan knows that, we all know that, and we try to work carefully together on some of those issues, but Pakistan – I don’t want to say that Pakistan can do more, but Pakistan knows what it needs to do. We expect Pakistan – and we’ve made clear, and the President has made clear in the past also through his new strategy that was announced back in August about the Asia – the new Asia strategy – that the United States expects Pakistan to take decisive action against the Haqqani Network and other militants who are operating from its soil. And they need to better – to earn, essentially, the money that we have provided in the past in foreign military assistance, they need to show that they are sincere in their efforts to crack down on terrorists.

QUESTION: The President made that speech in August. Between the August speech and today, what has – has there been any change in Pakistan’s posture, or has there been any movement towards the President’s goals?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think Secretary Tillerson and also Secretary Mattis spent some time over there in Pakistan not too long ago. And they shared with the Pakistani Government and their counterparts our concerns. We would like Pakistan to do more through cooperation. They have a lot; it’s not just us. We’re not the only ones who benefit from it. But they have a lot to gain through additional cooperation on the issue of terrorism. So we expect them to take greater actions.

QUESTION: And would you say they’ve done anything additional in the last four and a half months, or --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to characterize it that way, but I think the President’s tweets and his comments were very clear that we expect Pakistan to do that.

QUESTION: And the President said that $33 billion, or $35 billion in aid. The Pakistani Government has disputed that. Are the President’s figures correct from his tweet of yesterday?

MS NAUERT: You mean in the overall aid number --

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. Fifteen years, yeah.

MS NAUERT: -- that the United States has provided over a certain period of time? Let me double check that. But I would go with what he said.

What we are now talking about, the President is talking about, is the $255 million for Fiscal Year 2016 in the Foreign Military Financing. That’s what the President was specifically referring to. Okay?

QUESTION: Can you confirm that Pakistan --

MS NAUERT: We’re going to have to wrap it up.

QUESTION: -- has recalled its ambassador? They’re saying that --

MS NAUERT: Yes. Yes, our ambassador did meet with the Pakistanis – I believe it was last evening – in Pakistan, and he described that meeting with me that – pardon me – he described that meeting to me as a professional meeting. A professional meeting, professional in tone.

QUESTION: But did they recall the ambassador to Washington?

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Did the Pakistanis recall their ambassador from Washington?

MS NAUERT: Not that I – not that I’m aware of, but I’d have to refer you to the Government of Pakistan for that.

Hi, Conor.

QUESTION: Heather, since you raised the President’s tweet about this, he also called the Pakistanis deceitful, having two – being two-faced --

MS NAUERT: I think Rich actually raised that, but okay.

QUESTION: Well, you – you mentioned it.

MS NAUERT: Oh, I commented that. So therefore, I’m not going to comment on some of these things, because then you all will use that as an excuse.

QUESTION: Well, yeah.

QUESTION: It’s your job to comment.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Exactly. So does the – do you agree with the characterization of the Pakistanis being deceitful, devious, two-faced about the – that they’re playing a double game for far too long?

MS NAUERT: Look, I think the President – and the President’s --

QUESTION: Well, why don’t you just read the tweet?

MS NAUERT: The President’s concern – I don’t have it in front of me, but the President’s concern --

QUESTION: Well, I’ll get it. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: The President’s concern about Pakistan not taking enough action about terrorism is nothing new. The President had expressed that concern months ago. He expressed this at the beginning of the administration, as have many officials in the United States Government.

QUESTION: Right. Well, the – but he and a lot of other officials in the United States Government also expressed great happiness when – pleasure with the Pakistanis when they managed to – when they – after the rescue of the Canadian-American couple who were being held.

MS NAUERT: Certainly.

QUESTION: So that doesn’t count anymore?

MS NAUERT: Look, we were pleased with their cooperation. We certainly were. We --

QUESTION: But then --

MS NAUERT: -- have addressed that. But they can do more.

QUESTION: And they haven’t.

MS NAUERT: They can do more. I’ll leave it at that. Got to go, guys. Thanks. Have a good day.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Heather, a similar topic? Just that the President also weighed in on the release of Huma Abedin’s emails, and he said that he believes that she disregarded basic security protocol. Does the State Department agree with that? And if so, are there any repercussions for an action like that?

MS NAUERT: Some of that is a hard matter for me to address here because I wasn’t here at that time, a previous administration. So I don’t know exactly what protocol she went through. I’m not aware of what potential ramifications there could be, if any. I can only say that we take our records management very seriously at the State Department. Records were released as a part of a FOIA request. The information was released last Friday. We are working to get through a backlog of FOIA requests. Some of that just takes time. Some of this is a matter of litigation and we can’t comment on matters that are ongoing litigation.

QUESTION: Do you know if there is an ongoing investigation on whether or not she broke any protocol?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. Okay? All right. Thanks, everybody.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:09 p.m.)

DPB # 1

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.