U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 5

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - December 19, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 19, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL / CANADA / NORTH KOREA



UKRAINE / RUSSIA



DEPARTMENT / CHINA



NORTH KOREA



CHINA / RUSSIA



ISRAEL / PALESTINIANS



IRAQ



HONDURAS



EGYPT



BURMA



MEXICO



YEMEN / SAUDI ARABIA



PAKISTAN


TRANSCRIPT:

3:25 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Hi, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS NAUERT: How are you?

QUESTION: Good.

MS NAUERT: Hi. How have you been?

QUESTION: I’ve been good.

MS NAUERT: It’s been a while. Nice to have you back. Okay. I’d like to start with mentioning the Secretary’s trip to Ottawa, Canada today. As you know, Secretary Tillerson is in Ottawa making his first trip to Canada as the Secretary of State. Secretary Tillerson is joined on this first trip by Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Paco Palmieri. Many of you know him. And they were welcomed by Ambassador Kelly Craft.

While in Ottawa, the Secretary is meeting with Foreign Minister Freeland and several other senior Canadian officials as part of our ongoing and close relationship between our two countries. During the meetings, they discussed a range of issues, including mutual prosperity, defense and security, and our shared concerns on global issues, including North Korea and the ongoing situation in Ukraine.

On North Korea, the Secretary and foreign minister talked through upcoming plans to convene the United Nations Commanding Sending States meeting in January. We still don’t have the specifics nailed down, so I won’t have anything additional for you on that. But as soon as I do, I will certainly bring it to you. That group will include South Korea, Japan, and other key affected countries to discuss how the global community can address North Korea’s threat to international peace. Lastly, they spoke about the importance of border security and our mutual economic relationship.

In addition to that, I want to draw your attention to something that we addressed last week, but unfortunately, the situation has not improved in Ukraine. I want to draw your attention to the dire humanitarian situation and the spiraling violence in eastern Ukraine. Last night, Russian-led forces shelled the town of Novoluhanske with Grad rockets, wounding eight civilians and damaging dozens of homes, a school, and also a playground. Fighting also resumed today around the Donetsk filtration station and its system of pipes carrying poisonous chlorine gas. This is considered extremely dangerous. If those were to go off in this area, which is close to where people live, it could be potentially devastating.

Employees of the filtration station are trapped in the station’s bomb shelter at this time, we are told. Previously, a Russian-Ukrainian military body has organized ceasefires to allow civilians in similar situations safe passage. However, the Russian Government has unilaterally withdrawn from this deconfliction mechanism. This happened yesterday. So those trapped in the filtration station will remained stranded, under fire, until Russian-led forces stop the attack.

Russia and its proxies are the source of violence in eastern Ukraine, and the Russian Government continues to perpetuate an active conflict and humanitarian crisis through its leadership and supply of military forces on the ground, as well as its direct control over proxy authorities. The conflict in eastern Ukraine is not an organic civil war. The so-called “republics” that Russia created are not legitimate entities.

The United States calls on Russia to put an end to the attacks in eastern Ukraine, withdraw its forces and heavy weapons from the sovereign territory of Ukraine, and agree to a robust UN peacekeeping mission. And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

Oh, one more thing. I’d like to – many of you joined us yesterday for our public affairs holiday party, and I just wanted to thank you so much for coming up and spending time with our front office and the front office of many of our bureaus here at the State Department. We love having you. And I think it’s just another example of how we can certainly disagree over some things, but we can hang out and have a good couple of drinks together. So thanks for showing up.

QUESTION: Will there be one for the New Year or --

MS NAUERT: Well, that’s a good idea. (Laughter.) That’s a good idea. And we’ve got a little surprise for you coming up in Robert’s office in the new year. So – especially on a tough day.

But, Josh, go ahead. Good to see you.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. You too.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Why don’t we just start right on there. Is the – do you have any update for us on the status of trying to work out a UN peacekeeping deal for Ukraine? How’s that going?

MS NAUERT: That’s something that’s still under discussion. One of the things that we consider to be important about that is having it be a not only a real UN peacekeeping mission, but the line of conflict is something that would have to be agreed upon. We have some concerns about how that would work out. Russians are pushing for one side of things, and we’re pushing for another side of things. But it’s still something that we are looking at seriously.

QUESTION: And then I wanted to follow up on the National Security Strategy that the administration released yesterday. One piece of that brought up the issue of STEM visas that are issues in the context of intellectual property and the allegation that other countries are sending students here who then steal trade secrets basically and bring them back to their foreign governments. And it says that the U.S. will consider restricting those STEM visas from designated countries. What are those designated countries?

MS NAUERT: So the National Security Strategy which the President rolled out yesterday is a broad-based document that looks at and highlights our national security priorities. It’s not meant to be a piece of legislation; it’s not intended to provide extremely specific guidance to various government agencies, entities, and departments. So some of this we will take back from the National Security Strategy, take a look at the State Department in conjunction with the Department of Homeland Security. We have the ability to take a look at these things and decide what needs to be done from there.

So we don’t have anything specific for that yet. I can tell you, however, that our U.S. embassies and consulates are continuing to process visa applications as we normally would. So there has been no change at any point yet. No changes have been made. Security screening and vetting is something that you all know well that is constantly reevaluated; it’s constantly evolving and changing within various environments.

So if I have anything new for you on that, I’ll certainly bring that to you.

QUESTION: Sure. New visa steps aside then, can you tell us which countries are considered at a larger risk for that kind of problem?

MS NAUERT: To my knowledge, that has not been determined in any kind of way. Perhaps I missed something. But in that document, I don’t recall having seen any specific countries mentioned. So I think some of that will just – the U.S. Government will take a look at that.

QUESTION: And then on that issue – and one of the countries that comes to mind for a lot of people because of its focus in the NSS was China – China’s Government reacting pretty angrily to that strategy today, saying it’s part of a new Cold War kind of phenomenon. Do you have any response to the Chinese reaction?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think what we would say is no, it’s not that. It’s not what they called it out to be. We have a broad relationship with China, as we do with many nations around the world, where we have areas where we have mutual cooperation and get along great. As you know, the President has a very warm relationship with President Xi. But we also have areas of disagreement, and some of the areas of disagreement include human rights, some trade issues, and all that. So we can have that kind of broad-based relationship like yesterday. We all hung out and we had a good time together and celebrated the holidays, but sometimes we duke it out here as well.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

Hi, Said.

QUESTION: Can I move on?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Does – first of all, does anyone else want to cover DPRK or China?

QUESTION: China.

MS NAUERT: Oh, a lot of you do. Okay.

QUESTION: I’d like to ask about DPRK.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go right ahead. Hi, Carol.

QUESTION: McMaster today gave an interview in which he said now is not the time for talking, and he seemed to suggest that the United States may have to forcibly denuclearize the Korean Peninsula if North Korea does not denuclearize itself. It seemed to be an implicit rejection of the diplomacy that the Secretary has been doing.

MS NAUERT: I heard --

QUESTION: I was wondering what the State Department --

MS NAUERT: I heard General McMaster – I heard General McMaster’s interview this morning. I don’t recall him saying how you just characterized it. I know our official administration policy, our administration policy, is we would certainly like to sit down, be in the place where we can have talks with North Korea, but we are nowhere near that point yet. Our administration policy has not changed. We continue to push for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. There are many, many other nations around the world that agree with us on that front. We would like to have the opportunity to talk with North Korea when the time is right, and I want to be clear about that; the time is not right, right now.

QUESTION: Just on China.

MS NAUERT: Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: Good. South Korean President Moon said --

MS NAUERT: Can we come back to South Korea, stick with North Korea?

QUESTION: This is also North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry. They said that the U.S. and ROK are considering postponing military exercises until after the Winter Olympics. So – and obviously, part of this reason would be North Korea. So my question is: How seriously is the U.S. considering this proposal?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think that would be a DOD issue, but I can tell you that we have joint exercises that are legal. We do them around the world. We do them with many other countries. And those are to maintain our readiness and to be able to make sure that we are ready in the event of a worst-case scenario. But that’s something that would just be handled by DOD.

Okay. Anything else on ROK?

QUESTION: Heather?

MS NAUERT: Korea?

QUESTION: Korea-China.

MS NAUERT: Okay, hold on. Hi, Conor.

QUESTION: Just something that a White House official said. Tom Bossert, the Homeland Security Advisor, said that “President Trump has used just about every lever you could use, short of starving the people of North Korea to death, to change their behavior. So we don’t have a lot of room left to apply pressure to change their behavior.” If that is the case, how much more room do you have then, and how can you achieve results with this peaceful pressure campaign, especially again, as you say, now is not the right time to meet, but H.R. McMaster also said recently that we’re running out of time.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So look, diplomacy is what we do in this building and that’s not going to change. We will continue to push ahead with the peaceful pressure campaign, the maximum pressure campaign. Every day we’re speaking with other countries about having those countries do more to try to stem the tide of money going into North Korea. So that hasn’t changed. We’re pushing ahead. We had some good news come out of Thailand. They’re doing less in conjunction with North Korea than they had in the past. I’d have to look at the specific details.

But my point is there are a lot of countries doing a lot to contribute to this. Last week at the United Nations, Secretary Tillerson called on countries to go beyond the scope of the UN Security Council resolutions and agreements to do their part to choke off that money supply to North Korea. So regardless of what others in the U.S. Government say, we’re pushing ahead with peaceful diplomacy, maximum pressure.

QUESTION: So you think there is more – you would disagree? You think there is more room?

MS NAUERT: I think there is more that we can do, yeah. And that’s just like we call on Russia and China every single day to do more, to do more to put pressure on North Korea.

Anything else on North Korea?

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MS NAUERT: Hi. Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: So Bossert was talking specifically about the cyber attack.

MS NAUERT: Oh, he was. Okay.

QUESTION: And so --

MS NAUERT: I did not see his comments. I read a couple of them.

QUESTION: No, that’s fine. I just – I’m just trying to – so the pressure campaign, is that just targeting North Korea for its nuclear program and its missile activity, or is it also trying to tamp down on them for what they’re doing in the cyber sphere as well?

MS NAUERT: If it is with regard to cyber, I’m not familiar with that. One of the things we focus on here in that building – and cyber, I think, would be handled out of DHS or Department of Justice, perhaps even DOD – but we focus here on the money that goes into North Korea that North Korea then ends up using to fund its illegal nuclear and ballistic missile programs, so that’s what we stay focused on.

QUESTION: So the State Department won’t be involved in any unilateral consequence --

MS NAUERT: What I said is I’m just not familiar with that part of it. I’d just have to refer you to DHS at this point. If we have anything more, an angle that the State Department is specifically involved with, I’ll certainly let you know. Okay?

QUESTION: Heather?

MS NAUERT: DPRK.

QUESTION: Yeah. And on that --

QUESTION: China.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Janne, hi.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. As you already know that five Chinese combat airplanes flew over in the South Korea’s Air Defense Identification Zones. How do you comment on this?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. Tell me --

QUESTION: Five Chinese combat airplanes flew over in South Korean Air Defense Identification Zone, so how do you comment on this?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, I just don’t have anything for you on that. I’d refer you back to South Korea or to the Government of China.

QUESTION: Do you think this action is, like, threatening South Korea and China?

MS NAUERT: I just – I don’t have any specifics on that for you, so I don’t want to comment on that, because I just don’t have any specifics for you, okay?

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hey, how are you? Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we stay on DPRK, please, for just a second longer.

MS NAUERT: Wait, Afghanistan?

QUESTION: North Korea. North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Oh, North Korea. Okay. Sure.

QUESTION: Yeah. Secretary Tillerson pretty much signaled a willingness to have talks with North Korea recently, saying as much as, hey, you want to talk about weather, let’s talk about weather. I wanted to ask if you reached out to the North Koreans directly via diplomatic channels either in New York or someplace else to suggest having talks, other than making those public announcements.

MS NAUERT: First, let me tell you our U.S. Government policy has not changed. We are not going to be sitting down for talks with North Korea at this time. They are showing no interest, they’re showing no willingness to sit down and have conversations with the U.S. Government.

In terms of your question about whether or not any U.S. Government official or representative sat down and had a talk with North Korea while at the United Nations, the answer is absolutely no. The Secretary did address publicly the North Korean permanent representative, and he said to him, among other things, any notion that the source of tensions on the peninsula are the fault of one party – because some have blamed the United States for the deplorable conditions in North Korea – there is one party that has carried out illegal detonation of nuclear devices; there is only one party that continues to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles in violation of UN Security Council resolutions, overflying other sovereign nations – Japan – threatening civil aviation security because these launches are undertaken with no notification.

So the Secretary addressed him publicly, but the U.S. Government has had no other conversations.

Okay. Shall we move on to another issue?

QUESTION: One more about China, please.

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: So just calling China and Russia the rival powers in the --

MS NAUERT: Start your question again, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: I mean, my question is that just calling China and Russia the rival powers in the national strategy reports. So does it signal any policy change from the U.S. Government towards the countries?

MS NAUERT: About the national security strategy?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: I think I would just go back to the President and his team and our folks at the National Security Council outlined four pillars, four pillars of our national security strategy. And among those are just what we’ve talked about already – taking a look at other nations and determining other nations and where we have areas of agreement, and where we have areas of disagreement, and how we will – it may seem messy to some people, but we’ll work together with some countries in areas where we have agreement, and we will continue to call out countries and – in areas where we have disagreement. So I think I’ve stated that already, and the President’s comments were clear.

Okay? Let’s move on. Hi, Said.

QUESTION: Yes, hi. Thank you. I want to ask you about the American-Palestinian relations. First of all, at the vote yesterday at the Security Council, 1421, and Ambassador Haley said that this is to help the process of peace. Could you explain to us, what is – how could that possibly – your vote, your no-vote, your veto, could help the cause of peace?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I don’t want to speak on behalf of Ambassador Haley. She has a very capable team up there who handle that for her. But I can say this: We exercised our veto power because we view that that resolution would do more harm than good. The United States wants to not add to any additional strife. We feel that that resolution vote causes additional strife in the area. The President has long called for the two sides to sit down and have peace talks. They’re not there yet; we continue to work on those peace talks, however.

QUESTION: Yeah, but this is a position that the United States has long held. I mean, we can go back all the way to the late ‘40s, but most recently – more recently in the ‘80s, Resolution 478; last year, 2334, which basically was saying that Jerusalem is occupied territory, and we consider whatever Israel has done is null and void. Why would this suddenly be contrary to the American position?

MS NAUERT: I think what we would say is that the President took great care in his decision that he made about recognizing Jerusalem as the capital. We are not making any decisions about boundaries or borders; we see that as being up to final status negotiations, and they’re not there yet.

QUESTION: And I have one more about today, because today in the General Assembly, there was a vote on the right to self-determination. And 176 countries voted for the right of Palestinians for self-determination. You and Israel and the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau voted against. I mean, the right to self-determination is basically an American concept. It is an American principle. It was – it has been put forth by – pioneered and put forth by the United States. Why would you oppose the right to self-determination of the Palestinians?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think we would support – in terms of that, the United States is supporting something that both sides have to be able to live with and be able to agree with, the Israelis and the Palestinians. So when we get to the final status negotiations – when I say “we” I just mean the Israelis and the Palestinians, and we’re happy to help support and facilitate those talks, and we have people hard at work at that, but they have to decide; they have to come up with something that’s going to work for both sides.

QUESTION: And I promise, my final question – sorry, Michele – my final question.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: She shares.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: You can ask all my questions. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you if there is any ongoing talks or contacts with the Palestinian leadership at the present time.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I could just tell you that we look forward to having additional talks with the Palestinians. We were at a hopeful point with Mr. Abbas at the United Nations earlier this year. We had positive conversations about the peace process. Relationships between the United States and other nations have their peaks and their valleys. Some days are better than others, but we look forward to continuing those talks and we’re confident that we’ll be able to do that.

Okay. Laurie, you want to talk Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, Michele, did you have a question about this?

QUESTION: It’s okay. Yeah, quickly.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Sorry.

QUESTION: So we heard --

MS NAUERT: She’s been so patient.

QUESTION: It’s okay, I don’t care. We heard Ambassador Haley say that this resolution was an insult that won’t be forgotten. How does the State Department view that statement? Do you agree with that? And it kind of sounds like a threat of some kind.

MS NAUERT: I don’t have Ambassador Haley’s comments directly in front of me, so I don’t want to – I don’t want to speak on her behalf. I know that one of the things we’ve been extremely focused on today is the Secretary’s travels up to Canada to handle issues related to North Korea. We have a whole world in front of us. That’s just not something I have anything for you on.

QUESTION: Okay. And so when you say that the resolution itself does more harm than good and causes more strife, well, those parties feel like the U.S. declaration does the same thing. So if the U.S. is going to make a statement like that that many feel, including the U.S.’s closest allies, causes more harm than good at this time, why would the U.S. have such a problem with a resolution --

MS NAUERT: Well --

QUESTION: -- a resolution that simply expresses the opposite opinion?

MS NAUERT: They’re certainly – other nations are certainly welcome to support resolutions, just as they did, and that’s sort of – they have the right – the right to their free speech; they have the right to make the votes and choose the votes that they decide to put forward and vote for; and we have the right to vote the way that we choose, and we made that decision.

QUESTION: But calling it an – for the U.S. side to call it an insult that won’t be forgotten, it kind of seems like the U.S. has something in mind or some kind of retaliation for that.

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

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: I would just have to refer you to USUN.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks.

MS NAUERT: Okay? Laurie, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. The Dutch prime minister recently called on Baghdad to end its ban on flights to and from Kurdish airports, saying that it was getting in the way of Dutch military operations. Do you agree with that position? Do you think the ban should end, whether for military or humanitarian reasons?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I was looking into this and talking to some of our experts who cover Iraq about this very issue earlier today, and I think this goes back to something that, for a couple months now, we’ve been calling for Iraq and Erbil to sit down and have talks. And I feel like we say this about a lot of nations, but it’s really a perfect example in Iraq. That is a situation where they need to work it out themselves. I understand under the Iraqi constitution that the central Government of Iraq has sort of management over the airports throughout the country. That’s my understanding of the Iraqi constitution – not only the airports but also the borders. But for that very reason, it’s even more important for Erbil and Baghdad to sit down and have talks about the status of its airports.

QUESTION: And you’ve been saying that for so long and that – I’ve got a different understanding of the airports, but anyhow.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I’ve been – I think it’s joint operations, but whatever. You’ve been saying that for so long. The Iraqis do nothing. In fact, they increase the punitive measures on Kurdistan and show no regard whatever – whatsoever for your calls for dialogue. Don’t you think it’s time to publicly pressure Iraq? For example, the German foreign minister, when the prime minister of the Kurdistan region just visited there, said, “We’re going to make our aid to both of you, Baghdad and Erbil, contingent on a dialogue.” Are you inclined to up your pressure because, so far, nothing has happened?

MS NAUERT: Well, we have spoken about this a lot here. I think you’ve asked me about it at every briefing.

QUESTION: And I get the same answer and nothing happens.

MS NAUERT: At every briefing since this happened. We continue to talk with the countries – I mean with Erbil and Baghdad. We continue to talk with them and urge them to sit down and have conversations. In terms of punitive measures such as withholding money or anything, we never forecast that. I’m not saying we would do it at all, but we just continue to ask the countries to sit down and have a conversation. It’s ultimately hurting themselves by not sitting down. We hope that countries would see the wisdom in that.

Okay.

QUESTION: If in a month from now we have this same conversation, is there anything you’re prepared to do to put more pressure on Baghdad?

MS NAUERT: Laurie, I think that’s a hypothetical. We’ll just follow it and see what happens then.

QUESTION: A month from now? Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: A new topic?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: Honduras. The opposition leader is here in town urging you not to recognize Hernandez’s reelection. Does the U.S. believe that these – this vote should be – that there should be a revote?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So there are a couple entities which have looked at that election and they’ve come up with a little bit of different information about how they regard the election. We’re continuing to look at both of their responses, the OAS and the European election commission, I believe it’s called, to determine our position on this.

I can tell you Honduras’ supreme electoral council, it declared the incumbent presidential candidate, Juan Hernandez, as the winner. The process overall is underway. There’s that five-day period in which – that’s established under Honduran law, and that’s when people can present challenges that they might have to the election result. One of the things that we’re doing is having conversations with both sides, the opposition and the incumbent, to ask them to refrain from any provocative talk. We’re calling on both sides to not commit any kind of violent acts. I can confirm for you that our deputy assistant – excuse me – our deputy assistant secretary for Western Hemisphere, John Creamer, met with the opposition alliance’s Salvador Nasralla yesterday. Yesterday was December 18th, right? But I want to point out and be clear about this that we regularly meet with many individuals from the government in Honduras. Since the election we’ve met with candidates on both sides regularly.

QUESTION: I have one --

QUESTION: Do you support a call to have the election counted once more?

MS NAUERT: Well, there are two different electoral bodies, if you will, that have looked at this. My understanding is that they’ve come up with different results at this point. We’re just taking a look at all that. We’re not ready to make a call right now. They’re in that five-day period and so we’re going to wait and see what happens then, okay?

QUESTION: I have one other question --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yeah, go right ahead.

QUESTION: -- on another topic – on Egypt, because there was a woman here who came to the State Department a couple weeks ago. Her parents are both green card holders and jailed in Egypt. There are about 20 other Americans who are jailed in Egypt, and many were hoping that Pence would raise that on his trip, though he’s postponed it for now. What’s the State Department doing on that front, on the American citizens?

MS NAUERT: I’m not familiar with that case. I can just look into it and get back with you. I don’t recall that individual you mentioned having been at the State Department, but let me see what I can find for you about that, okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, Senator Tim Kaine sent a letter to Secretary Tillerson and Mattis expressing his concern that U.S. forces and coalition forces in Syria are switching from an anti-ISIS mission to an anti-Iran and proxies mission. What would be your answer to that?

MS NAUERT: You said that Senator Kaine sent a letter to Secretary Tillerson about this?

QUESTION: And Mattis.

MS NAUERT: I have not seen this letter supposedly going to Secretary Tillerson. I’m just not familiar with it. Okay? Hi.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Switching to Burma, Myanmar.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Wanted to talk about the – ask you about the two Reuters journalists who have been detained there. In the past, the State Department has suggested that the civilian government is not fully in control of events and it has focused its criticism on the military. Is it therefore a concern to the United States that the civilian president, Htin Kyaw, should have given approval for the case against them to proceed?

MS NAUERT: I’m not familiar with him giving approval for their case to proceed. I don’t have the details on that. What I can tell you is that we’ve been covering – following the cases of the two reporters, the Reuters reporters, very closely. We are deeply concerned about their detention. We do not know their whereabouts. That is of concern also. They’ve now been detained for, what, a week – about a week now, right? And today I want to make it clear that we’re calling for their immediate release. We call for the release of these two reporters.

As you all know, I was recently in Burma and had a chance to meet with a lot of reporters, and despite the status of the government – some very difficult things happening in that country – they have reporters who are working hard to tell the story and to try to accurately tell the story about what is happening in the northern Rakhine State. I met reporters who represent a free and fair press over there. Not all of them do; some of them have a state component to them or are heavily influenced by the state. But I met a few reporters who have the courage to report openly and freely, and we applaud those efforts. And so it is tremendously concerning to us when we hear that reporters have not only been detained but they’ve been detained and we don’t know their whereabouts. I can just tell you we’re covering this – following this very closely.

QUESTION: On this --

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Burma?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead, sir. Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. My name is Mushfiqul. I’m representing Justnewsbd. Right groups --

MS NAUERT: You know what, let me pause you for one second. I just want to add one more thing to that. It is our understanding that the families do not know about their loved ones’ whereabouts. I mean, imagine that. You’re a family member. Your child, your husband, your brother is reporting, and you’re just trying to tell the story. You’re reporting, you’re detained, and you don’t know where that loved one was. I cannot imagine, as a mom and a former reporter, what that would feel like. And so I hope that the Government of Burma will let us know how they’re doing and let the families know how they’re doing.

Sir, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. Human Rights Watch was – has claimed satellite images shows that dozens of Rohingya villages were burned the week Myanmar signed an agreement with the Bangladesh to repatriate hundreds of thousands of refugees. The evidence that villages were still being damaged as late as 2nd December contradicted assurance by the Burmese Government that violence had ceased and that the Rohingya could safely return to Myanmar, the watchdog said. Bangladesh and Myanmar signed an agreement on 23rd November to begin the proceed of repatriating some of the estimated 6,500 – 6,500 – thousand refugees who fled Myanmar in the past four months.

Do you think, with this reality, it will really work for repatriating the Rohingya refugees from Bangladesh to their homeland?

MS NAUERT: Well, that’s one of the things that we hope for eventually. We hope that the refugees will eventually be able to go home, to go home to Burma. More than 600,000 of them have been forced across the border since August alone and now it’s December. Bangladesh has been so generous in accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees. The U.S. Government has provided significant financial assistance to help with that. I want to be clear that that financial assistance goes directly to aid groups. That financial assistance does not go to the individuals. I want to be clear about that.

In terms of the repatriation plan, we’d like to see the plan. We’ve heard about it in concept. But one of the things that would be important to be in that plan is the voluntary, safe, and dignified return. So it has to be voluntary. People have to feel like it’s safe to go home. If they don’t feel like it’s safe to go home, it’s probably not going to be safe to go home. They have to have a dignified return. That means treating the people well as they decide to return home. It also needs to be voluntary. They can’t be forced to leave one country to go to another country. They have to feel safe and ready to go home. We don’t think that that situation calls for it just yet.

Unfortunately, I think it’s probably not safe for them to go home at this point, but we’re continuing to assess the situation and continuing to have our conversations not only with the Bangladesh Government, but also with the Burmese Government. Okay.

Anything else on Burma and Bangladesh? Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask on Yemen?

QUESTION: On Mexico?

MS NAUERT: Oh, yeah. Hi.

QUESTION: There was just a bus crash involving cruise ships in Mexico. Are you guys hearing anything about that and the possibility that there could be American casualties?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I have some notes on that because I heard about that not long before I went out – before I came out here to talk with all of you. There was a bus crash. And it was an accident, I would say, involving a bus that was contracted by Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines. It was in Quintana Roo, Mexico, which, as I understand, is close to --

QUESTION: Cancun.

MS NAUERT: -- Cancun, thank you. We’ve heard certainly about that. We’re following it very closely. We would want to express our condolences to all of those who have been affected by that. It’s certainly a tragedy. We know that lots of families and individuals are traveling this time of year when people go to have fun and they get a few days off, certainly, for vacation at the holiday time. We’re continuing to monitor that situation. We’re working with local authorities. Some of our officials from our U.S. embassy, or our – perhaps it’s our mission – are on their way there to better assess the situation and to speak with government officials to see how we can help and try to determine if there are any U.S. citizens who were involved. That we just don’t know yet.

QUESTION: Okay. You don’t know that Americans are involved at this point?

MS NAUERT: I do not at this point.

QUESTION: Okay. Thanks.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Okay.

QUESTION: Could I ask a question on Yemen?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. Yesterday, both the --

MS NAUERT: We’re all over the map today, aren’t we? Yes.

QUESTION: I know, sometimes. It’s the end of the – midweek. Yesterday, both the Government of the United States and United Kingdom called on the Saudi coalition to let up and allow humanitarian supplies and aid to go through to Sana’a and other places. Could you explain to us what you are doing in terms of talking to the Saudis to convince them or to allow this aid to go through?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, and I’m glad you asked about it. It’s an area that we care a lot about. We have had many conversations with the Saudi Government. We’ve put out numerous statements from the State Department. The President has as well. The President put one out about a week ago on the humanitarian situation in Yemen. Just last Friday, our Deputy Secretary John Sullivan, along with USAID Administrator Mark Green, held a meeting with humanitarian aid groups to try to get more information about what’s happening. When we talk about where we get our information, part of that is from our people on the ground in any given country, but part of that is also talking with aid groups. And we hear from aid groups about the situation on the ground.

The situation is certainly dire there, and that’s why we’ve been very clear and we’ve increasingly called on the Saudi Government to open up humanitarian aid. We have not seen enough aid getting through the ports, we have not seen the fuel supplies coming in that are necessary to get that aid in. And you’ve all seen the pictures on television; you’ve seen the pictures in the newspaper that people are in crisis. You see the women, you see the children there, they need help. I certainly hope the Saudi Government will listen to us and that they will try to open up that aid as we have called for.

QUESTION: But the --

QUESTION: So the – go ahead.

QUESTION: The Saudis say that the reason that they are not able to allow more aid in is because they’re – they have these concerns about those ports being used to smuggle in missiles and other weapons that are being shot at them.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: The U.S. has been giving --

MS NAUERT: And we’ve just seen that report about a – what they believe is a ballistic missile, which I can’t confirm that, but being fired into Saudi Arabia. So they do have every right to be concerned about their sovereignty and about their security. We are sympathetic to that. We’ve been attacked here in the United States too, so every country has a right to be concerned about that. But you also see the humanitarian situation and you see the horrific situation that people have put – been put in for several years now. And so we are asking the Saudis to open up the ports and allow humanitarian aid to come in.

QUESTION: So how – I mean, is there some advice that you’re providing to the Saudis about how they can let in just the humanitarian aid but better keep out the weapons? Because it seems like they’re working at cross purposes.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I would assume we are. Some of those conversations might be between DOD and the Saudi Government. We have a good relationship with the Saudi Government; you all know that. I would imagine some of the conversations would include tips to figure that out.

Okay, we’ve got to wrap it up, but --

QUESTION: Well, just on that.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Given the Saudis’ restrictions, is it the U.S.’s view that Saudi Arabia is in part responsible for the famine and for the deaths of these civilians?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to go as far as saying that, but what they can do is that they can open up humanitarian aid and they can allow it to get through to the people who need it most. Okay?

QUESTION: Heather.

MS NAUERT: Lalit, then we’ve got to wrap it up.

QUESTION: Yeah. About a month ago, U.S. issued a statement asking Pakistan to re-arrest Hafiz Saeed, the Lashkar-e Tayyiba leader. He’s still freely roaming around the country. What do you have to say on that? Has U.S. – has Pakistan listened to U.S. asks?

MS NAUERT: I don’t – for those of you who – I’m not sure if we’ve talked about this here in this room before. I think we may have on one other occasion. And who Lalit is referring to is the mastermind behind the Mumbai attacks – remember those – where the guys drove up on the boat, they went into the hotel, they shot up hundreds of people, killed I believe it was hundreds, including some Americans. That happened a few years back. He’s asking about the mastermind of those attacks, a man who is affiliated with LeT, Lashkar-e Tayyiba, one of the terror groups. It’s a group that the United States Government considers to be a terror organization.

We have many conversations with the Government of Pakistan. One of the things that happened recently is that this guy was held on house arrest. Pakistan released him from house arrest, and now there is word that he may be running for some sort of office. I want to remind folks we have a $10 million Reward for Justice program that would reward for information that would bring him to justice. So I want to make that clear so that everybody knows, $10 million out for this guy, and we would certainly have concerns about him running for office. So I’m glad you highlighted that.

QUESTION: But Pakistanis are saying they don’t have enough evidence against him. Has the U.S. provided evidence as well?

MS NAUERT: I can tell you that his organization – his organization that was responsible for those attacks – is considered a foreign terror organization. It’s considered a foreign terror organization by the U.S. Government for a reason and for a good reason. I would imagine that if we had any intelligence – and that’s not an area that I can discuss, anyway – but we would certainly share it with the Pakistanis on that front. I hope they’ll do the right thing.

Okay.

QUESTION: But what implications Pakistan has if he’s – continues to move freely?

MS NAUERT: I can’t --

QUESTION: That was a pretty strong statement U.S. issued.

MS NAUERT: I can’t comment on that. I would just have to refer you back to the Government of Pakistan and hope that they will do the right thing and remind folks across Pakistan we have a $10 million reward for this guy. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Thanks, everybody. We’ll see you soon.

(The briefing was concluded at 4:02 p.m.)

DPB # 72

 

United Nations Command Sending States

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 - December 12, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 12, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/THE GAMBIA



YEMEN/REGION



AFGHANISTAN/REGION



DEPARTMENT/THE GAMBIA



DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/REGION



RUSSIA



POLAND



RUSSIA/DEPARTMENT



VENEZUELA



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:39 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: Good afternoon. Good to see you all. A couple announcements I have to make. And the first -- you may recall the visa restrictions that were put on the country of Gambia earlier this year. We have an announcement to make on that.

On September 30, 2017, the Department of Homeland Security notified the Department of State that Gambia denied or unreasonably delayed the return of its nationals the United States ordered removed from the United States. Since then, the Government of Gambia has worked diligently toward addressing our concerns. We are pleased to announce that on December 8th, the Secretary certified that Gambia had met its international obligations concerning the repatriation of its citizens, and the United States has now ended visa restrictions and has resumed normal visa processing in all visa categories, effective December the 12th. Ensuring the countries facilitate the removal of their nationals who are subject to a final order of removal is a high priority for the Department of State and this administration, and we are pleased that The Gambia took proactive steps to address our concerns. So that’s a little update for you.

Secondly, something I’d like to mention on Yemen. The United States Government announced an additional $130 million in emergency food assistance to Yemen through USAID today. This now brings the total U.S. contribution in humanitarian aid for the people of Yemen to nearly $768 million since Fiscal Year 2016. The funding announced today will support the United Nations World Food Program to distribute food aid to Yemen’s most vulnerable populations. The United States remains gravely concerned about the worsening humanitarian situation in Yemen. We continue to call on the Saudi-led coalition to facilitate the free flow of humanitarian aid and commercial imports, especially fuel, through all Yemeni ports and on Houthi-led militias to allow unfettered access for food and humanitarian aid to reach all areas inside Yemen. Finally, we call on all parties to protect the civilians, including humanitarian aid workers, who work at great personal risk to deliver life-saving assistance to the people of Yemen.

And finally, many of you, I think, in the past have met Ambassador John Bass, or at least have heard of him. One, I’m pleased to announce today that Ambassador Bass has now arrived in Afghanistan over the weekend. Today he presented his credentials to Afghan President Ashraf Ghani today in Kabul. Ambassador Bass is a career Foreign Service officer with close to three decades of diplomatic service at the State Department. He most recently served as our U.S. ambassador to Turkey, which may be the reason his name is familiar to many of you. He’s also served as our ambassador to Georgia as well.

The U.S. mission in Afghanistan is one of our largest in the world, and I can’t think of a better person to serve and be the face of the United States in Afghanistan than Ambassador Bass. His continued economic and political development – he will continue to push that, including support for the rule of law in combating all forms of corruption in that country. A main focus of his tenure will be on efforts to bring peace, security, and stability to the country and the region as part of the U.S. South Asia strategy. And so we look forward to having him serving there in Afghanistan.

With that, I’d be happy to take your questions. Where would you like to start today?

QUESTION: I’d – just before we go to – I want to go to the town hall.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: But I have a very brief thing on The Gambia announcement.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: So does this mean that all of the deportees, that they’ve accepted all of them? Or just enough to get – to meet the --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know if it – I don’t know if they’ve taken every single one back. But they’ve taken steps in the right direction, enough so that we can remove the visa restrictions.

QUESTION: And the visa restrictions were only in place for government officials. Correct?

MS NAUERT: I believe so, yes.

QUESTION: Right. And the vast majority of Gambians who might want to come to the United States --

MS NAUERT: I believe it also included some of their family members as well. But we can double-check that.

QUESTION: Right. But the vast majority of Gambians who might want to come to the United States probably couldn’t afford to come to the United States (inaudible). So I’m just --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know the answer to that, Matt.

QUESTION: -- I’m wondering if you guys – you guys care --

MS NAUERT: We’re always amazed by how much people want to get – not amazed, not – surprised by how much people want to get to the United States and what they’re willing to do to come to our free country.

QUESTION: Did you – do you know – did you get assurances that these people will be treated humanely on their return to Gambia? Or --

MS NAUERT: I would have to – I’d have to refer you to Department of Homeland Security on that because DHS was the main government body that was negotiating with the government on this one.

QUESTION: All right. Well, I’d be curious to know if you guys care what happens to them when they get back because presumably they’re being deported here for some kind of reason. Are they going into custody there or are they just being released? If they’re being held in custody, did you guys get assurances that they’d be treated okay? Anyway, that’s that.

On the Secretary’s town hall --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- I was interested in listening to hear for updated figures, if you all have them, about retirements, resignations over the course of the past 11 months. He didn’t really address that. There was one brief mention of the size of the Foreign Service being roughly the same as it was at this point last year.

MS NAUERT: I do have some numbers for you, some updated numbers for you. But I want you all to keep in mind that these numbers are constantly changing. As people make decisions about retiring, we may see some new changes – or some new numbers in the coming weeks. But I do have an update for you. But go ahead, finish – if you want to finish the question --

QUESTION: Well, that’s – I just --

MS NAUERT: That’s it? Okay. So --

QUESTION: I’d like one more, but that’s the – but not about the numbers.

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right. I’ll take the numbers first and then we’ll go to your next one and get to everybody else. In terms of our career Foreign Service officers and specialists, here are some of the preliminary accounts that we have – counts, pardon me. From February the 1st to October the 31st of 2017, 274 career Foreign Service officers and specialists have retired during that time period. That is roughly on par with the number that retired in 2016. That number was 262. So 274 this year, up till October the 31st, that same time period last year was 262.

QUESTION: What about resignations?

MS NAUERT: Uh, let’s see. Retirements – I’m not sure that I have anything on actual resignations.

QUESTION: Well, you’re probably aware that in recent days there’s been a flurry of new reports about the – about mid- to lower-level people resigning out of frustration, anger --

MS NAUERT: I saw one news article about --

QUESTION: -- disappointment.

MS NAUERT: -- a woman who retired in Africa, or decided to step down.

QUESTION: Well, she didn’t retire; she resigned.

MS NAUERT: She resigned; pardon me.

QUESTION: So I’m curious to know about numbers of resignations rather than retirements because if you look – if someone resigns rather than retires, and doesn’t have benefits, is not vested, that’s – it’s a little bit different than a retirement. So I’d be curious, if it’s possible, to get the numbers of resignations of --

MS NAUERT: I will – I will certainly check in with our human resources people and see what I can find for you in terms of the number of resignations that we’ve had.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the last one, which will be also very brief, was that the Secretary, in response to some question, I believe, made a mention of how staffing at posts, some posts in Europe – and I think he named London, Paris, and Rome – might go down as people are repositioned. I’m wondering if this is in any way analogous to what former Secretary of State Rice put in place with this – her concept of transformational diplomacy, where she also talked about shifting significant numbers of diplomats from European capitals to places of – India, Indonesia, Pakistan, rising places. And if it is analogous, how? Because it – her initiative was not combined with a goal of reducing staffing by 8 percent.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Well, first of all, I wouldn’t compare what the Secretary mentioned today to what Secretary Rice had done in the past. And I say that because the Secretary now – Secretary Tillerson – has looked at some of our posts, some of our very, very well-staffed posts in places like Paris and London and elsewhere, and certainly they do great work there. But we also have posts where perhaps more people are needed, where there are perhaps issues that are very pressing that need a lot more attention.

So I think as the Secretary looks at some of these bigger posts in very well-off countries, industrialized countries where the issues aren’t as grave as in other places, he’s looking to maybe see if we can reconfigure things to put more people in posts where there may be more people needed.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS NAUERT: So that’s why I wouldn’t compare it to Secretary Rice’s. Yeah, hi, Nick.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that, he said that there would be no office closures. Does – is he saying now that there will be no closures of consulates in countries in Europe as part of this shift in resources?

MS NAUERT: I don’t think so. I think – and we’ve spoken about this in the past. I think he’s just looking at it, saying, hey, look. Look at Paris. Look at London, where – I don’t know what the numbers are, and you know we don’t announce those numbers anyway. But they’re – it’s a huge staff in some of these places. And if you look at that and compare it to – and this is just me saying this – if you compare it to a place like Pakistan, they might need more people in Pakistan. They might need more people in Venezuela. They might need more people elsewhere than they have in these beautiful postings like Paris.

QUESTION: Sure.

MS NAUERT: And so I think it’s just taking a look at the numbers and reconfiguring that.

QUESTION: But is he – was he making a commitment they’re not to close any consulates?

MS NAUERT: I know that – I know that that is a question that you all have asked before. I’m not aware of any consulates that we are looking at closing. Okay?

QUESTION: One of the embassies mentioned – oh, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Okay, but he’s not – he’s not saying – because he said there will be no office closures. So --

MS NAUERT: If he says there will be no office closures, then I would take him at his word. Yeah? Hi.

QUESTION: One of the embassies he mentioned is maybe shrinking is Paris, and Paris is a tri-mission. They – there, for example, the administration set an intent to pull out of UNESCO. You haven’t nominated the UNESCO ambassador. I assume you won’t bother since in just over a year’s time you’ll be out of UNESCO. When he says you’re not going to close any offices, is he meaning at least entire missions might go?

MS NAUERT: I – to – back to Nick’s question, I thought your question was the same as Nick’s.

QUESTION: It’s similar. But it’s not a physical office; it’s a concept, I suppose.

MS NAUERT: Oh, I --

QUESTION: Will you have a mission to UNESCO?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. I’m not aware of anything that we’ve announced that we’re closing at this point. I think what the Secretary was referring to are actual posts or consulates, and I’m not aware of anything that’s – that we are looking at closing. Okay?

QUESTION: Can we move to China?

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Sure. Hi, Said. How are you?

QUESTION: Hi, Heather. On Jerusalem, I wanted to ask you first if you have any update as far as any possibly urgent measures or unusual measures that you are taking in your embassies worldwide, because there’s been many demonstrations since we spoke the last time? Is there any update that you can give us?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I don’t have any updates for you. Our embassies are always keeping an eye on the situation, the reality on the ground. We are in constant contact with our embassies as well to keep an eye on security situations, and we put out that information as we get new information or as it warrants.

QUESTION: Are you surprised by the size of these demonstrations, and in fact, the scope of these demonstrations, that they cover a huge geography all around the world?

MS NAUERT: Said, I think, one of the things as Americans we are accustomed to countries and people around the world either protesting or making their viewpoints well known. I don’t think any of this really comes as a surprise to us.

QUESTION: Yeah. I understand, but did you figure or did you factor in that there will be such a reaction? Or are you – you expected this?

MS NAUERT: I – Said, we have talked about this. We plan for all eventualities or virtually every eventuality and various conditions on the ground. I don’t think anything would come as any big surprise to the United States if people like or, perhaps, don’t like a policy decision that we’ve made.

QUESTION: I have a couple more. Isn’t there any --

MS NAUERT: Okay, but we’re going to have to move on --

QUESTION: A couple more.

MS NAUERT: -- because we don’t have a ton of time today. I have to get over to the Atlantic Council.

QUESTION: Absolutely, yeah.

MS NAUERT: So this let’s make this one the last one.

QUESTION: A couple more. Has there been any contact between the State Department and its personnel, such as the consulate general in Jerusalem with the Palestinians and Israelis?

MS NAUERT: As of a couple days ago, I know that we had had contact with the Palestinian Government. I know that we’ve been in conversations, but I don’t have any updates for you on that. Okay?

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on Jerusalem, Heather?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi.

QUESTION: So in the town hall, the Secretary was asked about whether – what the challenges were for moving the embassy, and he responded in purely operational terms about the building site and security and all that. I know what the explanation is for the decision – it’s practical and so on, that’s what they’re saying – but does he have any – does he believe there will be any challenges politically given the political controversy in terms of the credibility of the U.S. role in continuing this mediation effort or --

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure I’m really following your question.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: How would a political challenge affect our ability to move our embassy, because some of the things that would have to be done in order to do that include talking to Congress --

QUESTION: No, you’re right. I was thinking about the role – the – in the peace process, whether there – one of the challenges of moving the embassy would have a political consequence of making it impossible for the U.S. to mediate in a peace process. Does he feel that that is a possible challenge?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think the Secretary addressed this previously last week on his European trip, and the President addressed it as well. And they’ve both said similar things in that when we look at the peace process over the past many decades, we have not really – despite the efforts and despite all the good work of many administrations, Republican and Democrat, have failed to make changes to the situation over there. And so the President looks at this as a new way of potentially being able to move the ball, to advance the ball to try to get the Palestinians and Israelis to come together.

So we’re hard at work at that. We have not given up. We are still optimistic. We certainly know that some things can become complicating factors, but we look forward to sitting down and trying to advance the peace process.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on this --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the embassy. Last week when we were in Europe, Secretary Tillerson said that the physical move of the embassy wouldn’t be this year and probably not next year. This morning he said three years. I don’t know whether something has changed over the weekend to prolong the process or whether they’re just vague estimates. Do you – does Secretary intend that the physical move of the embassy should take place during President Trump’s first term?

MS NAUERT: Well, look, I think the move – the moving of the embassy will be done when it is all – when it’s ready. And some of the things that have to be done include talking to Congress about the money, taking a look at the most appropriate site for it. As you all know, security is extremely important. We have to take a look at all the security things that have to be factored into that site. Is this a – is this the right space for it. So a lot of that stuff is just, frankly, going to take time, and that’s why the Secretary said it could take several years.

QUESTION: Aren’t those things the administration could have considered before making a decision to move the embassy?

MS NAUERT: Well look, I suppose so. But here’s where we are now, the President made his decision, and now we’re taking the position that we need to look at what next – what the next steps are.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: So the three-year estimate this morning is where we are, though, in terms of approximately?

MS NAUERT: That is a number that I have heard discussed. So --

QUESTION: Syria?

MS NAUERT: -- I think that would – I think it would be fair, Dave, just to state that that is a number that we are looking at. It could take longer; it could take less time. Okay?

QUESTION: Syria? Syria?

MS NAUERT: Hey, Arshad.

QUESTION: A couple of – just some very tight, quick ones.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is today Secretary Tillerson’s Senior Communications Adviser R.C. Hammond’s last day?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: In a December the 1st New York Times article, three administration officials are cited as saying that he’ll be leaving soon, I think it said in the next couple of weeks. And he said that that was wrong, that he was not leaving soon. What changed?

MS NAUERT: He being?

QUESTION: He, Mr. Hammond, on the record said that.

MS NAUERT: I see.

QUESTION: What changed? And in the intervening eight or nine days, because I think the pool report said on Friday that he was leaving on the 12th, and you’ve just confirmed it. So what changed in that period between December 1 and today that he wasn’t leaving, and he said he wasn’t, and now he is leaving?

MS NAUERT: I would just have to refer you back to him. I’m sorry. You certainly know how to reach him. I’m not going to speak about somebody’s personal career plan. So I’d have to refer you to --

QUESTION: Was he fired in the intervening time?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to comment on his career. He served this administration for about a year now, and I’d just have to refer you to him on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Syria? Syria?

QUESTION: Heather --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay, let’s go to Syria.

QUESTION: According to Robin Wright in The New Yorker, you’ve reconciled yourself to Bashar al-Assad’s remaining in office until the next Syrian elections in 2021 because there aren’t many other options now. And in fairness to you, this was really set by the previous administration and it’s evidenced by Matt Lee’s repeated interrogations of John Kirby. So, I mean, is what she wrote basically correct? Can you confirm it?

MS NAUERT: I would say her reporting’s off the mark.

QUESTION: Off the mark.

MS NAUERT: Off the mark. We remain committed to the Geneva process. We believe that the future of Syria will not include Bashar al-Assad, but that is ultimately up to the Syrian people and the Syrian voters to decide. It could take a period of time before the Syrian people are able to get to the process by which they can actually turn out to vote. We’ve talked about this a little bit before, trying to include the diaspora in that voting. We remain committed to the Geneva process. Russia has said that it would help bring the regime to the Geneva process. They did part of that for a time. They chose to leave while the opposition stayed. We were – we noticed that and thought that was a very good thing that the opposition stayed during some of the Geneva talks that just took place over the past few days. We expect that Russia will continue to try to bring the regime to the table. But the Geneva process is something we stand firmly behind.

QUESTION: Do you have a timeframe in mind for this?

MS NAUERT: Look, I think we are still at the place where U.S.-backed organizations and coalition-backed organizations are removing the rubble. We’re still involved in the demining process. So I’m afraid we’re just not there to the electoral process just yet, but we’re having a lot of conversations with the UN and other like-minded countries about the importance of the Geneva process.

QUESTION: So what was off the mark in the story?

QUESTION: Can you comment on the withdrawal of Russian forces?

MS NAUERT: In her story, she said that the U.S. had accepted that Assad will be in power until 2021. We’ve not accepted anything of the sort. It could take some time, but we’ve not just accepted that. And by the way, it’s not up for the United States to ultimately decide, that is up to the Syrian people.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask if you have any --

QUESTION: So there’s no 2021 goal or idea?

QUESTION: Heather?

MS NAUERT: Not that I have seen. In talking with all of our experts on ISIS and in Near Eastern Affairs, no one here has seen that number in paper or spoken about.

Okay.

QUESTION: Heather? Heather?

QUESTION: On the withdrawal of the Russian forces from Syria yesterday, as was announced by President Putin. First, do you have a comment? And second, is this in any way – did you know in advance that the Russians were moving their troops out of Syria?

MS NAUERT: No, I can’t --

QUESTION: Or a number of their troops.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I can’t speak to any alleged Russian troop movements. So I’d have to refer you back to the Government of Russia on that one. But it’s interesting, Russia may consider its job in Syria to be done. Our job in Syria is not done. And when I say “our,” I don’t just mean the United States, I mean the entire coalition. There are still pockets of ISIS. The country still needs to be stabilized. We were just talking about rubble removal and we were talking about demining. If Russia chooses to pull out, certainly, that is its choice to do so, but we continue to work through all our partners to try to stabilize the country.

QUESTION: So if the job is not done as you – you don’t consider it done. The --

MS NAUERT: The job is not – the job is not done.

QUESTION: Not done. I understand.

MS NAUERT: It’s not – done in Iraq, even though Iraq has declared victory over ISIS. It’s not – it’s still not done there because there are still individuals there who belong to ISIS, who will take part, undoubtedly, in terrorist activities. Syria, the job is far from done there, unfortunately.

QUESTION: So is it the expectation that the United States will continue to have a presence there in military terms? I mean, it has like 2,000 personnel. Is it likely to increase (inaudible) its position?

MS NAUERT: Look, I can’t comment on the number of U.S. personnel there. That would be under the Department of Defense. But the job is not done yet. There are – there’s a lot of work left to be done in Syria. We wish that weren’t the case, but it is the case, and we’ve made a lot of progress on this. And again, when I say “we,” I don’t mean the United States, I mean the entire coalition has made a lot of progress. But it’s not finished yet.

QUESTION: Heather?

MS NAUERT: Hey, John.

QUESTION: Hey. I wanted to follow up on the Trump administration’s rejection of a Russian proposal on noninterference in each other’s internal affairs. Are there any things that Russia can do so that the United States might reconsider a noninterference agreement, given concerns about potential meddling in light of the 2018 midterms being on the horizon?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. It’s funny that some are indicating that we rejected a deal with Russia and that that’s a bad thing that we rejected the deal. Let me – let me remind you that Russia is not an honest broker when it comes to deals. I can point you to a few things, from INF treaties which they are not in compliance with but yet they are supposed to be. Okay, that’s one example of an area that they can’t – they’re not holding up their end of the bargain. Minsk, that’s another area. Anti-doping, that is another area. So Russia has a history of this. So I think it’s – I would be very skeptical when Russia comes to you, when Russia comes to the United States saying, “Okay, here’s our agreement.” I’m not certain it’s worth the paper that it’s actually printed on.

So I’d be very suspicious of any kind of deal, any kind of story that says, “Oh, Russia, they wanted you to agree to this but bad America, bad America wouldn’t agree to it.” They have a record of the noncompliance with the INF; I just mentioned on arms control, other key agreements, a failure to honor commitments on Minsk, denials of its ongoing support of violence in eastern Ukraine. We haven’t talked about this in an awful long time: the cover-up of the shoot-down of MH17, which happened over eastern Ukraine back in, what was that, 2015 or so? The denials of interference in our election. So I find their claims to just be laughable. Okay?

QUESTION: Yeah, and I take your point on those. It sounds like, given that rundown, that there is quite a low level of trust, and we probably shouldn’t expect an array of new sort of agreements between the U.S. and Russia. Is that right?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to forecast any potential agreements. But I’m just saying on that one matter that you asked me about, I think we’d be pretty suspicious about signing anything. Okay?

QUESTION: Let me congratulate you early on the – your “bad America” soundbite, which will be probably very popular in certain parts of the world.

MS NAUERT: It might be. It might be. (Laughter.)

We’ve got to get moving on pretty quickly. Hi, Marcin. How are you?

QUESTION: Thanks so much.

MS NAUERT: Wait, hold on. Let me go to our friend Marcin back in there, from Poland. Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. There have been quite a lot of changes in Poland recently, including the last changes over judiciary that are taking place tonight. Could you comment on all of the recent developments in Poland?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. As you know, Poland is a close ally of ours, a NATO member, also a fellow democratic country. We have a good relationship with that country. But we’ve been watching very carefully some of the developments that have been taking place in Poland over the last 11 months, over the last year or so. In terms of some of the recent judicial reform legislation that’s been moving through Polish parliament, we are following that very closely. We are aware of the president’s new judicial reform proposals and recent amendments that have been introduced in the lower house of parliament. We continue to follow that closely, the upper house of parliament’s deliberations on that legislation. We are relying on our allies to maintain strong democratic institutions, economies, and defense capabilities. The United States has stressed that judicial reform should be in line with Poland’s constitution and the highest standards of international law, and respect judicial independence and separation of powers.

Another thing that we are following very, very closely is what is happening to some news organizations in Poland. And as a democratic country, you tend to have a free and fair press. We’re tremendously concerned about the direction that the country seems to be going in. We’re concerned about Poland’s national radio and television broadcasting council’s December the 11th, yesterday’s, decision to fine the private TV broadcaster TVN for so-called biased reporting of demonstrations that occurred between December 16th and 18th. A lot of you have – probably saw those demonstrations here on the news. A free and independent media is a fundamental pillar of democracies. Poland would certainly be one of those. The decision appears to undermine and interfere with media freedom in Poland. They’re a close ally and a federal – and a fellow democracy. So we’re watching that one carefully.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yeah, hi. What is your name?

QUESTION: Sameera Khan.

MS NAUERT: And you’re from?

QUESTION: RT.

MS NAUERT: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: Yes. So when RT was forced to register as a foreign agent, you said that it wouldn’t inhibit our ability to report. However, just a couple weeks ago, our press credentials were revoked. So doesn’t this contradict your earlier statements?

MS NAUERT: I think press credentials may have been revoked by Congress, and not necessarily the members of Congress, but rather the association of reporters that handles who gets to come in and cover Congress. The – FARA, the act that you’re speaking of, only requires that organizations register with the federal government. That is it. The United States does not tell any Russian news organization what to report or how to report it. We don’t tell Turkish ones, we don’t tell Polish ones. In fact, the fact that you’re here as a representative of the Russian Government is a perfect example of how we do not restrict any type of freedom of the press. You come in, Sputnik comes in, all the Russians come in here and you are more than welcome, and the reason why you’re more than welcome --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) House of Representatives --

MS NAUERT: Hold on. The reason that you are more than welcome is because we have freedom of the press here in the United States. We support the First Amendment. We wish that the Russian Government would give us the same opportunities to report freely in Russia as we provide you all here.

Any of you listen to bluegrass? All right. Laurie, you listen to bluegrass. My understanding is that one of the bluegrass stations, I think it’s 105.5 here in Washington – is that right? You’re nodding. You’re nodding too.

QUESTION: The only one.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Well, it used to be bluegrass and now it’s Russian radio. Right?

QUESTION: It’s Sputnik.

MS NAUERT: Now it’s Sputnik Radio. So that is a perfect example, on the free airwaves here, where people don’t have to pay for it. But they can get Russian news, if you will.

QUESTION: Right, but --

MS NAUERT: And by the way, may I just mention that Russian Government itself has talked about how it will influence RT and Sputnik, how it will influence how it reports and what it reports on.

QUESTION: Yes, but back to the original question: We can’t go to the House of Representatives or the Senate to report, so that restricts our ability to report on that.

MS NAUERT: I would encourage you, then, to talk to the congressional correspondents association. You are more than welcome here at the State Department anytime you like, but that would be up for the State Department’s Correspondents’ Association to handle.

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yeah, hi.

QUESTION: Heather, how do I --

QUESTION: A couple --

QUESTION: On this issue --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Heather, how – that was a very nice, full-throated support of freedom of the press you just gave, but how comfortable are you doing that and how comfortable are you that you can speak for the entire administration given the fact that you just went off on the – you heavily criticized Poland for this – going after a TV station for biased reporting, but we’re hearing the same thing coming out of the White House every day. Criticism, yes, not legal action, at least not yet. Are you comfortable --

MS NAUERT: Well --

QUESTION: -- that you speak for the entire administration --

MS NAUERT: -- I think --

QUESTION: -- in your support for --

MS NAUERT: I think that – I think these instances are night and day. The administration is rightfully concerned about some erroneous reporting that’s come out. I have said to some of you here before – although I think you are all terrific reporters here at the State Department. We are very lucky to have a professional group of reporters who take the issues as seriously as you do. There have been in the past mistakes that have been made. Whether or not they have been intentional or not on the part of reporters, I cannot speak to because I’m not involved in that. But there have been times in the past where reporters have just frankly gotten it wrong, and I understand that members of the administration would be concerned about reporters getting things wrong.

But I am not going to back away from my defense of a free and fair press that reports responsibly and accurately. That is something that we stand for here in the United States. We like to set an example for other countries and talk about how we can have uncomfortable conversations here in this room. You’re asking me that very question. That is what we stand for. You from the Russian Government, you were asking me those questions too. You are welcome here anytime. That is what we stand for here in the United States --

QUESTION: So what’s the definition of “free and fair press?”

MS NAUERT: -- free and fair debate.

QUESTION: Any network that’s funded by a state government? Or what’s your definition?

MS NAUERT: We have many news organizations that are funded by state governments who are welcome to come here. That is an example, no better example.

QUESTION: So it’s just the Russian Government – any network funded by the Russian Government, those are the only ones that can be targeted?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, targeted?

QUESTION: Are targeted, cracked down on, restricted in reporting.

MS NAUERT: The FARA Act --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- will ask entities to have to sign up for the FARA Act. That’s it. I’m pretty sure that there are other ones on there as well. We’re going to have to move on. You’re welcome back anytime.

Hi, yeah.

QUESTION: Quickly, thank you. A couple weeks ago from here you called on the Venezuelan Government to release Josh Holt, an American held in Venezuela for more than a year now, on humanitarian grounds. Since then – I believe yesterday – audio purportedly of him has been released indicating he is not well. Have you heard that audio tape and are there any developments on securing his release?

MS NAUERT: Here’s what I can say: Josh Holt, an American citizen, has now been detained in Venezuela for nearly 18 months. He has never formally been charged with a crime. We have consistently called on the Government of Venezuela to release Josh Holt on humanitarian grounds due to his ongoing health concerns. I am certainly aware of that tape. I know that some of my colleagues have listened to a tape. We can’t independently verify that that is his voice. However, we have no reason to believe that it was not his voice. For those who have heard the audio recording, it certainly describes his dire medical condition. We believe that he is in extremely poor health, which is why we continue to call on the government to release him.

He had preliminary hearings in Venezuela, and as many of you know, some of those hearings had been delayed. Some hearings have not been held at all. He had hearings on October the 10th and October the 24th. He has a hearing that is set to take place sometime today in Venezuela. We’ve had a representative at the previous two hearings – excuse me, is there something you need right now?

STAFF: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. We’re leaving at 3:30, so I’m good, right? We’re leaving at 3:30.

STAFF: 3:15.

MS NAUERT: Oh, 3:15. Okay, so I’m going to have to wrap it up. He’s in extremely poor health. We want him to be brought home. I don’t have an update for you on how his hearing today went. We expect that somebody from our embassy was able to join him for that. If I get anything more for you on – I’ll share that, okay?

Okay, and as you can see, my colleagues are standing in the back, telling me I have to go. I do want to clear up one thing, clarify something on the hiring freeze which was announced earlier today, and there’s been some misreporting on that. Some have reported that the State Department hiring freeze altogether has been lifted. I want to be clear: The hiring freeze as a whole has not been lifted. The hiring freeze as it applies to eligible family members is being lifted.

Now, that is not insignificant, because the few times that I’ve been at our embassies overseas and have talked to my colleagues there, we’ve asked what are the top issues, what are the top concerns for you here at the – as you work for the State Department overseas, and that is one of the things that they mentioned, eligible family members. Let’s just say a Foreign Service officer goes over and is serving at a post in Bangladesh, where I just was, and they have a spouse. They will often – Bangladesh is a bad example, but let’s say Burma – bring a spouse over there to live with him or her. Often those people are professional people who can contribute a lot to our embassies while they are serving overseas. During the hiring freeze, they were not able to work for the State Department, although there had been some exemptions that the Secretary had made. Now we are happy to announce that we are lifting that hiring freeze so those spouses, eligible family members, can rejoin work and can work at the State Department. So we’re happy that, but I just want to clarify that it only applies to the eligible family members and EPAPs, which stands for --

MR GREENAN: Employee Professional Associate Program.

MS NAUERT: -- Employee Professional Associate Program. That falls under EFM.

QUESTION: When are you going to lift the wider total hiring freeze?

MS NAUERT: That – the wider hiring freeze will be a decision that the Secretary will make. I’m just not sure. I know he wants to get through the redesign.

QUESTION: Can I give you a – give you a question --

MS NAUERT: I’m going to have to run or I’m going to miss my bus.

QUESTION: -- a question to take on Honduras?

MS NAUERT: Yes. Yes.

QUESTION: The election --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- and whether you guys accept the results, as your senior diplomat down there seemed to say a couple days ago?

MS NAUERT: Can I have my colleague here --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: -- Robert take that one?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Sorry we have to cut it short here, guys. I have to --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: -- go get the bus.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Thanks.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:14 p.m.)

Expanded Professional Associates Program

Expanded Professional Associates Program

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 - November 30, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





November 30, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/INDIA



VENEZUELA



LIBYA



SECRETARY TRAVEL



DEPARTMENT



POLAND/GERMANY/RUSSIA/UKRAINE/REGION



NORTH KOREA/GERMANY/REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



IRAQ/REGION



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:57 p.m. EST

MS NAUERT: A couple announcements I’d like to start off with for this portion of the briefing today. We have talked recently about the Global Entrepreneurship Summit that is taking place in India this week. That concluded today. This year’s Global Economic Summit focused on supporting women entrepreneurs and fostering economic growth globally. For all of our progress, gender divides on access to technology, nutrition, and health, preventing women, their families, and their communities from reaching their full potential.

In order to close this gap, USAID Administrator Mark Green announced several USAID-led efforts there in India. This includes the Women Connect Challenge, which will help bridge the digital divide; a 28-team Feed the Future Competition; a $2 million commitment from Feed the Future designed to lift up and mentor female entrepreneurs in Africa; new funding to help India combat tuberculosis by increasing women’s access to diagnosis and treatment; and the launch of USAID’s first health impact bond, which is aimed at saving the lives of women and newborns in India. Administrator Green is also going to Mumbai tomorrow to participate in a World AIDS Day event, where he will reconfirm the U.S. commitment to ending HIV/AIDS.

Another matter. We talk a lot about how safety and security is – of Americans overseas and here at home is one of our top, top priorities. With that, I’d like to bring you a little bit of an update on an American who’s been held for quite some time in Venezuela, and that’s Josh Holt.

The United States calls on the Government of Venezuela to release on humanitarian grounds U.S. citizen Josh Holt, who’s been detained in Venezuela since June 30th, 2016, almost a year and a half now. Throughout his 17 months in detention, so far without charges, we’ve raised our concerns about Mr. Holt’s case, his condition, and his treatment at every opportunity. We remain extremely concerned for his health and his well-being. The decline in his health has been further exacerbated by the Venezuelan authorities’ delays in providing necessary medical treatment. Sometimes they have blocked his care altogether.

The U.S. Embassy in Caracas continues to raise concerns regarding the Venezuelan Government’s repeated postponements of and refusal to transport him to scheduled hearings, court hearings. Again, we call on the Government of Venezuela to grant Mr. Holt immediate release and return him to the United States.

Another matter, and this is something that’s happening tomorrow that the Secretary will take part in, is a meeting here in Washington with the Libyan prime minister. We are pleased to welcome the Libyan Prime Minister Fayez al-Sarraj and the Libyan delegation to Washington later this week. The President will host the prime minister at the White House tomorrow. While in Washington, the prime minister and the Libyan delegation will also meet with other U.S. leaders, including Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis tomorrow afternoon.

In those meetings, we look forward to deepening the partnership between the United States and Libya. We will reaffirm the United States support for Prime Minister Sarraj and his Government of National Accord as the Libyan people seek to build a more stable, unified, and prosperous future. The Secretary looks forward to discussing with Prime Minister Sarraj our shared efforts to defeat ISIS and also other terrorists as well.

The Secretary and Prime Minister Sarraj will also discuss the central role of the UN Special Representative Salame’s mediation and the importance of the Libyan efforts to reach a political solution within the framework of the Libyan Political Agreement.

And finally, the Secretary referenced this earlier this week, and this is his upcoming trip to Europe. U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will travel to Brussels, Belgium, Vienna, and Paris December 4th through the 8th. On December 4th he will arrive in Brussels, and that’s where he’ll meet with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg and attend the December 5th through 6th NATO Foreign Ministers Meeting. While in Brussels, he’ll also meet with senior Belgian officials as well as EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini and the foreign ministers of the 28 European Union member-states to discuss U.S.-EU cooperation on major global issues. He will then travel to Vienna on December 7th, where he will attend the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe – that’s OSCE. It’s a ministerial conference that’s hosted by the OSCE chairman in office, Austrian Foreign Minister Sebastian Kurz.

He will then attend the opening and first plenary sessions together with ministers from the 57 OSCE participating states. He will also meet separately with Foreign Minister Kurz to discuss combating violent extremism, curbing nuclear proliferation, promoting democratic and economic reform in the Balkans, and also deepening bilateral trade ties.

Finally, Secretary Tillerson will travel to Paris – pardon me – to meet with senior French leaders to discuss our deepening cooperation on issues of mutual concern around the world. This includes Syria, Iran, Lebanon, Libya, the DPRK, and the Sahel, in addition to other areas of bilateral interest.

So thank you for listening to all that information we have here out of the State Department. I know you have a lot of questions, especially about the news today, so I’d be happy to take those. Josh, if you’d like to start, from the AP.

QUESTION: Sure. Thanks, Heather. Why don’t we go right to the elephant in the room? Many of our news organizations are being --

MS NAUERT: And let me just pause by saying I’m sorry, I have allergies, and so I’ve got a little bit of a cough today. So go right ahead.

QUESTION: No problem, sure.

MS NAUERT: Go right ahead.

QUESTION: The White House officials are telling many news organizations represented here that Secretary Tillerson is on his way out, he’s going to be replaced by CIA Director Pompeo. Is that accurate? Is – has the Secretary spoken to Trump about this today? And how long does he expect to remain in his role?

MS NAUERT: Okay. So here’s what I can tell you: You saw the White House statement earlier today. The White House statement confirmed that there will be no personnel changes. It is a fact that Secretary Tillerson serves at the pleasure of the President, as we all do, as does every political appointee and cabinet member. Secretary Tillerson enjoys this job. He has a lot of work to do. We started out this morning together when he had a series of meetings. In addition to his regularly scheduled meetings with Washington officials and phone calls, he had a meeting with a foreign minister, Foreign Minister Gabriel of Germany.

The Secretary and I spoke at that time. We talked a little bit about Burma, we talked a little bit about the DPRK. The Secretary had a successful meeting, which I’d like to get to a little bit later and tell you a little bit about what came out of that bilateral meeting, and then he was off to the White House. We heard about the news. He went off to the White House with a regularly scheduled meeting with Bahrain and the President, returned here for a short while, and then he headed back to the White House for an additional meeting which was a preset meeting, a small principals group meeting. The topic of that is Syria.

The reason I’m telling you about sort of all these comings and goings of the Secretary is that he remains, as I have been told, committed to doing this job. He does serve at the pleasure of the President. This is a job that he enjoys. He is continuing with his meetings. He’s continuing with his calls. He has spoken not only with Foreign Minister Gabriel, but also with the – pardon me – with the UN secretary-general earlier today, and so he’s continuing with a full schedule.

QUESTION: Now, how does he go about doing his job with this hanging over him? I mean, he’s going to go off to Europe on Monday. What reason would foreign governments have to believe that he speaks on behalf of President Trump when the White House is letting it be known publicly that they don’t have confidence in him anymore?

MS NAUERT: The Secretary is someone whose feathers don’t get ruffled very easily. He kind of brushed this off today. He’s heard these kinds of stories before. These stories have come up through his tenure here at the State Department and he’s just going on about his business. In terms of how he will handle the meetings next week, he has a very robust schedule. These are matters that he’ll be discussing that he is passionate about, from our relationship with the Europeans to NATO and asking various NATO countries for additional commitments in Afghanistan, something we view as being important to addressing the good and solid relationships we have with European partners. So he has a big agenda. That agenda has certainly not changed.

He remains the Secretary of State. As long as he is serving at the pleasure of the President, he will continue to do that job.

QUESTION: But you’re not saying that these rumors are groundless. Are you saying that they are completely false and groundless?

MS NAUERT: Here’s what I know. I don’t work at the White House.

QUESTION: Right, right.

MS NAUERT: But what I can tell you is that Chief of Staff Kelly called our department this morning --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- and said that the rumors are not true, that those reports are not true. That is what I’ve been told, that’s what we’ve been told. And you heard from the White House today that they have no personnel changes to announce.

QUESTION: So wouldn’t it be the right thing to do to for the White House to issue a statement on the eve of the Secretary’s departure on such a major trip to say that these rumors are groundless, if that is the case?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to tell the White House how to conduct its business. The – excuse me, the chief of staff has spoken to reporters. I believe he did a gaggle earlier today in which he spoke to reporters and said that this report is not true. Sarah Sanders has spoken to reporters as well. I believe she has a briefing a little bit later today. I’m sure many of you want to cover that as well. So I’d have to let the White House speak for itself from – but from our standpoint here at the State Department we remained committed to our job. As you saw, Ambassador Birx was here talking about the successes of our Global AIDS Program, and we’re just continuing with business as usual.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary discussed this with the President when he was over at the White House?

MS NAUERT: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Heather --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: -- how would you characterize the chemistry between Secretary Tillerson and Mr. John Kelly?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I – oh, between Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Kelly, or Chief of Staff Kelly?

QUESTION: Chief of staff. Chief of Staff Kelly.

MS NAUERT: I was told – I was not at the White House today, I was here. I was told that it was normal, the same as usual, that the Secretary was treated the same as he always is. That’s what I was told.

QUESTION: Who did John Kelly speak with when he called this morning? And – I mean, you said not to your knowledge that there was any discussion between the President and Secretary, so there was no personal assurance during his time over at the White House today --

MS NAUERT: Again, I was not there. So I hesitate to say too much, because I was not there to see it myself. But some of that would be a private – considered private discussions, but I don’t believe that that conversation took place.

QUESTION: Okay. And the call to the department today from John Kelly?

MS NAUERT: The call to the department came into the chief of staff this morning. There may have been --

QUESTION: To Margaret Peterlin?

MS NAUERT: Correct. There may have been subsequent calls that have taken place. If so, if something’s happened since we’ve been in this briefing room, I’m not aware of it. Okay? Hi. Hi there.

QUESTION: Hey. Does the Secretary want to keep this job? Does he feel that he’s doing a good job? He’s come under incredible pressure from outsiders, from Congress. Does he want to keep the job?

MS NAUERT: The – the Secretary is somebody who is unflappable. I mean, you’ve seen him here before. He’s somebody who is committed to his job. He is someone who is very passionate about speaking with world leaders and advancing U.S. foreign policy goals. He continues with his schedule and the schedule that we have put out, and that schedule hasn’t changed. So I believe that that is something that he’s committed to doing.

QUESTION: Will he fight to keep the job should they decide that they’re going to go on with someone else?

MS NAUERT: That would be just speculation; a hypothetical that I’m not going to get into. Okay? Conor.

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: But does he feel pressure from the White House? I mean, given this leak – and we’ve done this now for a couple months of people at the White House leaking unflattering stories about him and his relationship with the President – does he feel pressure to resign from the White House?

MS NAUERT: I think what he feels is that Washington can be a tough game of politics. You have heard him reference that before, that he’s not from Washington, he’s not a person of Washington, and he doesn’t always understand and accept exactly how Washington works with anonymous sources, things of that nature. That’s not who he is, that’s not the world that he comes from. Okay?

QUESTION: May I please stick with --

QUESTION: Follow-up on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, go right ahead.

QUESTION: How would you characterize his relationship with the President? Some of these reports, it’s been reported that it has soured over the last couple of months in particular.

MS NAUERT: Well, certainly they will have areas of disagreement when it comes to policy. I mean, that’s no doubt. And – I mean, that’s very clear. The Secretary has spoken to that himself and has said that’s part of the reason that the President hired him, so that he could have different opinions being given to the President and the President could ultimately make his decision on various policy issues. So they have had areas of disagreement when it’s come to policy. I know that the President certainly respects Secretary Tillerson. I know that they’ve had a certainly a cordial relationship. Where that relationship is today, I can’t speak to that. Okay.

QUESTION: That doesn’t sound like a ringing endorsement there.

MS NAUERT: Well, I have not personally been in the room with the Secretary and the President at the same time. So there’s not too much that I can really say about that other than the Secretary serves at the pleasure of the President, and the Secretary had two meetings with the President today. Okay? Go ahead, Nike.

QUESTION: It had been mentioned that Secretary Tillerson and President have some areas of disagreement on policy --

MS NAUERT: Well, they have in the past certainly on things like climate change and all that. You know that.

QUESTION: Does that also include the latest retweet on anti-Muslim video, and has the State Department warned the White House that such retweet may cause repercussion?

MS NAUERT: One of the things we will always say is the safety and security of our American personnel and of U.S. citizens abroad is our top concern. The State Department has continuous conversations with the White House and the National Security Council about anything that could affect any American’s safety and security abroad. When it comes to specific conversations, you know all too well that I can’t comment on our sort of private internal conversations, but it wouldn’t be unusual for us to have those kinds of conversations about any matter in the world. Okay?

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: Has the State Department warned the White House such retweet may put U.S. embassies abroad at risk?

MS NAUERT: I will tell you again, we have lots of communications with the White House and NSC about a variety of security issues. I don’t know that yesterday or today is any different than it was in the past. Okay? Carol, hi.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

QUESTION: Has the Secretary --

MS NAUERT: Hold on.

QUESTION: On this --

QUESTION: Did the Secretary speak with Secretary Mattis today? I know they speak frequently. And did they discuss this in particular or --

MS NAUERT: I believe – let me double-check the schedule, but I seem to recall that Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson met early this morning.

QUESTION: And did they discuss this in particular, these rumors that --

MS NAUERT: Again, let me take a double – double-check the schedule about that, but I believe it was early this morning that they met.

QUESTION: And --

MS NAUERT: And early this morning, that was before this news broke.

QUESTION: Okay. Could you check also to see if Secretary Tillerson spoke with General Kelly when he was at the White House?

MS NAUERT: I told you they did speak when they were at the White House.

QUESTION: At the White House? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Heather, (inaudible).

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Hold on. Okay. Hold on.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS NAUERT: Go ahead, Josh.

QUESTION: Can you tell us whether based on the divestiture agreement that the Secretary entered with the Government Ethics Office whether he would face any tax or financial implications if he were to leave, particularly if he were to leave before the one-year mark?

MS NAUERT: I’ve seen that story. I’m certainly aware of that report. People have started to ask about that. I have no knowledge of how that financial situation would work. I can certainly look into it. I’m not sure I’m going to have an answer for you. However, I have spoken with various reputable news organizations – I won’t name them – but some of them are in the room today, who have all said that they’ve run down that story and have found no basis in fact for that. But again, that’s based on what reporters here in the room have told me about that story.

Okay, Said.

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

MS NAUERT: Hold on, let’s stay – we’re going to stay with this before we go on to that. Yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah, it’s a follow-up on the embassies.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: At some embassies in some Muslim countries enhanced their security protocols since yesterday and those tweets.

MS NAUERT: We would never address security protocols that either have or have not changed at our embassy. That’s something that we keep close to the vest here at the State Department. We have a – talked about this the other day – a brand new assistant secretary for Diplomatic Security, who has a very big job not only overseeing our more than 2,000 Diplomatic Security agents who work for the State Department but also our locally employed staff who are security officials who help protect our embassies, and by the way, we have the Marines out there as well. In terms of changing our security posture, that’s just not something we’re going to get into.

Okay. Anything else on that? Okay. Hey. Hey, Gardiner.

QUESTION: I just wanted to follow up on Josh’s – hey.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Josh’s point. Don’t these rumors and these stories, which have now been reported widely by many different outlets, don’t they make the Secretary’s job very challenging, because won’t his counterparts in Europe next week be asking themselves who Tillerson is speaking for? Because these stories suggest that he no longer speaks for the President or has the President’s confidence.

MS NAUERT: Look, I can tell you this. After meeting with the foreign minister of Germany today, and then the story broke as we were emerging from that meeting with the German foreign minister; fast-forward a couple hours and I see an AFP report that talks about one of the issues that came up in the meeting with the foreign minister of Germany, and that is Germany’s decision to reduce its diplomatic mission in Pyongyang and require North Korea to reduce its presence in Berlin. That is a subject that came up today between the Secretary and the foreign minister. That is something that is a part of our maximum pressure campaign to take money out of North Korea, to try to choke off the money that goes into North Korea, that goes into its ballistic and nuclear programs.

The reason I mention this, Gardiner, is that this story came out after that meeting. This story came out a few hours later. That is important and that is significant because the foreign minister made this decision, put that information out there after this news broke. What I am saying is that the Secretary has his position, he is the Secretary of State, he will continue with that position, continue doing his job, continue doing his duty and serving the American public until the President, if and when the President decides that he no longer wants to keep the Secretary in his position.

Okay.

QUESTION: Yes, one more clarification on this.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: That you keep mentioning that you cannot share with us the diplomatic conversations, but if you see the top level, President and the prime minister of the UK are talking directly on the Twitter. And so what else is left to – not to be shared with us?

MS NAUERT: Well, that would be between those – the governments. You mean the President and the UK. I can’t speak for the President, and I certainly can’t speak for the British prime minister.

QUESTION: No, what else is left – at what level there is – there are more talks?

MS NAUERT: I’m sure I’m not following your question. Are you suggesting that the only conversations that take place between world leaders is on Twitter?

QUESTION: No, I’m talking about the department is – are the departments having a conversation to do the damage control?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, I’m not understanding your question.

QUESTION: When the President tweets and the UK prime minister replies and then the President replies --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- there is a level of conversation going on. And then you say that there is – there are also conversations at the lower levels or other levels which you cannot share with us because they are private.

MS NAUERT: Sir, nothing has changed. Often, we do not discuss the contents of our diplomatic conversation. I mean, you’ll hear many of your colleagues here complaining about that. There are some things that we choose to keep private. That hasn’t changed. But I can’t comment on the conversations that the White House is having with other nations.

Okay? Okay.

QUESTION: All the way in the back, please.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi. What are you doing all the way back there?

QUESTION: Well, I came in late, so I didn’t want to disturb things.

MS NAUERT: Oh. Okay. Well, that’s very polite of you. Good to see you.

QUESTION: So could you give us a little more detail about the call that was taken from General Kelly? And you say that he – he told, I guess, the Secretary of State that these reports aren’t true. Could you talk about what else he said, how he explained the fact that every major news organization was reporting this out of the White House today?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to characterize what Chief of Staff Kelly – what exactly he said. I think that would be for General Kelly to explain himself. But I know that he did place a phone call this morning and said that there was nothing to that report of having a plan in place.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Hold on.

QUESTION: He spoke with who?

QUESTION: He spoke from here.

QUESTION: He spoke with --

MS NAUERT: I told you that. I already told you that. He spoke with our chief of staff this morning. Yes. Okay? Okay. Hi, sir.

QUESTION: I have a question about Nord Stream 2.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Deputy assistant --

MS NAUERT: Why don’t we do this? Let’s get through these stories and then I will come back to you, okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Thank you. Anything else on this issue?

QUESTION: Can we change topics?

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Okay. We’ll change topic, then. Okay, we’ll go to Nord Stream 2.

QUESTION: About Nord Stream 2.

MS NAUERT: And – I’m sorry, you’re with who, sir?

QUESTION: I’m Marek Walkuski, Polish Public Radio.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Nice to meet you. Welcome to the State Department.

QUESTION: Deputy Assistant Secretary McCarrick told a group of European journalists that, I quote, “We don’t see the possibility that Nord Stream 2 is going to be built. That is not something that we are going to assume is going to happen.” Could you explain what is the statement based on? And I’m wondering if the topic has been discussed during the meeting between Secretary Tillerson and German foreign minister and what’s the conclusion of their discussion if, in fact, it was one of the topics.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I can tell you that that conversation did not come up. The Secretary and the foreign minister had a very positive meeting in which they talked about the DPRK, North Korea. They talked about the humanitarian crisis in Yemen and the importance of Saudi Arabia opening additional ports and ways that we can get humanitarian aid into Yemen. They talked about a few other matters as well. Nord Stream 2 was not one of the topics that came up in my presence. Now, they may have had a separate sideline conversation that I did not witness, so that may have come up.

In terms of where exactly we are on Nord Stream 2 – pardon me one second – another topic related to that is the multi-line Turkish Stream, as I understand it. So our position on this would be that Europe is certainly working to try to diversify where it gets its energy. I’ve spoken with some of your colleagues before, people from that part of the world as well, and recognizing that there should be and could be more sources of energy. We have seen in the very cold winter months where Vladimir Putin – which is where a lot of your energy comes from in particular in Poland – where he will turn down, turn off those energy supplies, causing costs to go up and causing people to lose heat on occasion. So we know that Europe is working to diversify its energy sector overall. It’s also assessing projects that would undermine some of these efforts.

We agree with many of our European partners that Nord Stream 2 and a multi-line Turkish Stream would reinforce Russian dominance in Europe’s gas markets. It would reduce opportunities for diversification of energy sources. It would pose security risks in an already tense Baltic Sea region and it would advance Russia’s goal of undermining Ukraine – that’s a particular concern of ours – by ending Ukraine’s role as a transit country for Russian gas exports to get to Europe. Construction of Nord Stream 2 would concentrate about 75 percent of Russian gas imports to the EU through a single route, creating a potential checkpoint that would significantly increase Europe’s vulnerability to a supply disruption. So we believe that these two projects would enable Gazprom to cut off transit via Ukraine and still meet demand in Western Europe, which would economically undermine Ukraine by depriving it of about $2 billion in annual transit revenue. Okay?

QUESTION: But is this statement correct, that you don’t believe that the project would be built, that Nord Stream 2 would be built? And Secretary Tillerson called recently the Nord Stream 2 unwise. What are you doing to stop this unwise project?

MS NAUERT: So, sir, I don’t have the Secretary’s comments in front of me, so I hesitate to comment on having something that I --

QUESTION: Two days ago at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

MS NAUERT: I understand. I understand. I just don’t have the exact quote in front of me.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: So I’m not – I’m just not going to comment on that. And the other person who made a remark, I don’t – I’m afraid I don’t have that with me either, so – okay?

QUESTION: Yes.

QUESTION: Can we move on? Heather, can we move on please?

MS NAUERT: Thanks. Yeah, North Korea.

QUESTION: Yesterday in a briefing you gave, you specifically called on Germany to withdraw its ambassador from North Korea.

MS NAUERT: That was misreported. I’d like to go back, and if you want to check the transcript, actually, I did not call on Germany to get rid of its ambassador. What we did and what we often do, as you have heard me many times here before, is call upon countries to do a lot more – to do a lot more, which could include kicking out an ambassador. It could include reducing the size of a footprint of that country. It could include reducing the number of North Korean guest workers. There were some reporters who misreported that, so I just want to make that clear.

QUESTION: But, I mean, the quote – I’m – maybe this is inaccurate, but you said “we would continue to ask Germany or other countries around the world to recall those ambassadors, shrink the footprint of the size of the entity that North Korea has in any given country.” I mean, so when you said --

MS NAUERT: That is nothing new. We ask all --

QUESTION: To recall those ambassadors --

MS NAUERT: We ask a lot of those countries to do that type of thing, certainly.

QUESTION: Okay. So did the Secretary today ask the foreign minister of Germany to recall his ambassador?

MS NAUERT: The Secretary did not specifically ask that, but the conversation did come up. And that’s why I mentioned that --

QUESTION: Sure.

MS NAUERT: -- AFP story that came out earlier today that said that they would – I’ll just go back and double-check it – but that they would, I believe they said, reduce the size of their footprint.

QUESTION: So but was --

MS NAUERT: Reduce its diplomatic mission. But look, what this --

QUESTION: Was he disappointed that the Germans have not recalled their ambassador? I mean, Nikki Haley yesterday was very explicit at the UN they want countries around the world to completely cut off diplomatic ties with North Korea. Germany is saying essentially, sure, we’ll reduce staff, but we’re going to leave this embassy open.

MS NAUERT: I think – I think this is a success. The news that we have seen come out of Germany, as with many other nations – we’ve seen this with Peru, we’ve seen it with Japan, we’ve seen it with South Korea, we’ve seen it with Sudan where Sudan has recently said that it’s no longer going to buy weapons from the DPRK. That is all a part of our maximum pressure campaign.

That maximum pressure campaign, which you all probably get tired of hearing me talk about, is something that we – is our top national security priority here. Nations continue to get on board and support that. We have well north of 20 countries who have done different things to jump on board with that campaign, and I think the news that’s coming out of Germany today is altogether positive.

Okay.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Said. Hi.

QUESTION: I have a follow-up on North Korea.

QUESTION: On that subject --

QUESTION: Sorry --

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: On that subject --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, okay. Hold on. Okay.

QUESTION: Just can you just sort of again be explicit? Do you want all of your allies to end diplomatic ties, withdraw their ambassadors from Pyongyang? Because we’re hearing from your allies, from U.S. allies, that they have no intention of withdrawing their ambassadors and that in their conversations with the Trump administration, the Trump administration is not asking them to withdraw their ambassadors or end diplomatic ties. So what are you asking them specifically to do?

MS NAUERT: Well, one of the things that we have talked about here in this administration is the importance of sovereign nations. Right? So nations have the ability to make the choices that are best or that they believe are best for their nations. However, we all – civilized nations – recognize the constant and pervasive threat of the DPRK. We saw what just happened two days ago with what we believe may have been an intercontinental ballistic missile launch, in addition to the other launches that North Korea has conducted and the advanced nuclear testing that they conducted just a few months ago.

So we have seen all of that. The world recognizes what a regional and global threat North Korea is, that North Korea presents. So many countries in the world are on board with this campaign, on board with the maximum pressure campaign. But countries have to make their own decisions about what will work best for them.

QUESTION: What is the campaign? Do you want them to all close their embassies and withdraw all their diplomatic personnel from Pyongyang?

MS NAUERT: I can give you transcript and transcript and transcript of the briefings from here, Gardiner, or from the, Secretary Tillerson’s meetings about our maximum pressure campaign. I can briefly go over it once again. Sorry, you all have heard it in --

QUESTION: No, just the ambassador.

MS NAUERT: You all have heard it a million times.

QUESTION: I mean, because they’re telling us that you – they’re not hearing from you that they want – that you want their missions to be shuttered and all their ambassadors withdrawn.

MS NAUERT: I have not heard from any particular ambassadors with that question. I have not gotten that question from any particular ambassadors. If we do and I know about it, I can certainly let you know, but we’ve not gotten that question so far.

QUESTION: I just --

QUESTION: On another --

QUESTION: But you want them to all withdraw their ambassadors; is that right?

MS NAUERT: Look, I – here’s what I would say. And I’m not in the position to make policy so I am not going to do that, but a key part of our maximum pressure campaign is to ask other nations – and again, let me underscore that countries are all sovereign. Okay? They need to do what they feel is in their best interest. That is something that this administration recognizes. But we ask countries to choke off the money supply that goes into North Korea. We know for a fact that North Korea doesn’t use the money that comes in to its government or to its people for the benefit of its people. They don’t feed their people; they have people starving, malnourished. We’ve all seen that. You’ve seen the intestinal problems that the soldier who just escaped from North Korea has certainly had. All of that.

So we know the money doesn’t go to the people. We know the money goes to its illegal weapons programs. So we have called on countries across the world to join us in that maximum pressure campaign in reducing the size of their missions in North Korea. If they would be willing to close their missions in North Korea altogether, I think that that is something that we would be supportive of. We’ve also called on nations to kick out North Korean guest workers, to reduce the size of North Korean missions in their own countries. It’s a broad pressure campaign.

We also have the multilateral – the multilateral, the unilateral sanctions, and all of that in addition to the UN Security Council resolutions.

Okay? Okay, let’s move on.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you, Heather. Let me just ask you very quickly. Today marks the end of the six-month waiver for maintaining the – your embassy in Tel Aviv and moving it to Jerusalem. Do you have any news on that? Is the President going to likely sign another waiver for another six months? Or --

MS NAUERT: I know everyone would like to speculate about that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, what is your position?

MS NAUERT: So I can just tell you that no decision has been made on that matter yet. My understanding is that the waiver is actually due to Congress by December 4th --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- which would be --

QUESTION: Monday.

MS NAUERT: -- Monday. Okay. I think you had said today. The President has said that he has given serious consideration to the matter, and we’re looking at it with great care. That’s all I have for you on that.

QUESTION: Okay. Is the Secretary talking to the President on this issue? Because in past administrations the secretary of state always presented the case as to why this would be a bad decision for the United States at this particular time.

MS NAUERT: I know that the --

QUESTION: While there’s some sort of process ongoing.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. The Secretary is talking to the White House about that matter, and I know we’re having a lot of conversations about that as well. But again, I want to underscore that no decision has been made yet.

QUESTION: And one last question, last – I mean, when you determined that the office of the PLO must remain open, you said that we want to limit their activity to the peace process. Does that include the movement of the ambassador and his staff, let’s say when they are called by the Palestinian American community in San Francisco to speak or anything? How do you limit their activity to that particular area?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that particular scenario that you outlined.

QUESTION: This is – right.

MS NAUERT: That is not one that I had heard of. But I can --

QUESTION: Okay. Well, it said – it says – it’s therefore – you’re saying that it’s optimistic, that you are optimistic in – in 90 days or in three months the situation will be such that would allow the office to remain operational fully. But also, you say that they must limit their activities to the peace process. What does that mean?

MS NAUERT: Okay. So we have advised the PLO office to limit its activities to those related to achieving a lasting, comprehensive peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. We’re actively involved in restarting what we consider to be substantial Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. We have found – and we talked about this coming out of the UN General Assembly – both parties have been cooperative; the conversations have been constructive; and we believe that both sides are prepared to engage in negotiations.

The statute that you reference provides that if, after 90 days, the President determines that the Palestinians are engaged in direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel, restrictions on the PLO and its Washington office may be lifted. You reference this also: We remain optimistic that at the end of that 90-day period the political process may be sufficiently advanced and that the President will be in the position to allow the PLO office to resume full operations.

Okay?

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: If there’s not been a decision yet on what we’re going to do on the embassy waiver, why has the State Department informed diplomatic posts in Muslim countries that they need to be on edge for violence around this?

MS NAUERT: I think that is something we would never discuss – any conversations that our State Department is having with our posts around the world, so I just can’t give you anything on that.

Okay? All right.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Can I just follow on that, though?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: The Vice President has said it’s not a matter of if but when. So this could be the time when it comes, so are you making contingency plans at all?

MS NAUERT: We would never discuss any potential security contingency plans, at least not that I am – certainly not that I’m aware of. You know that that’s something – we talked about that earlier – that we keep pretty closely held.

Okay? A last question. We’re going to have to wrap.

QUESTION: On Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Laurie, hi.

QUESTION: Hi. The Chaldean archbishop of Erbil has been here seeking financial support because Baghdad has said it has no money for reconstruction. Did anyone here in this building meet with him, and is the administration going to assist with the reconstruction for the 100,000 Christians who have refugees from Nineveh province?

MS NAUERT: In terms of the meeting, I’m not aware of any actual meetings that were held between the Chaldean archbishop and anyone at the State Department. So I’m not aware of any of that taking place. I can tell you as a general matter we are deeply committed, deeply committed – and we’ve talked about this before – to the world’s most vulnerable people. That includes ethnic and religious minorities. We’re particularly concerned with people who are suffering in conflict-affected areas, and we are steadfast in our resolve to ensure that those communities get the assistance that they need.

We are a generous nation. We have provided a lot in terms of humanitarian assistance to Iraq and other nations around the world. We have also, however, said that we are no longer in the building – or in the business of nation-building. What we’ve been doing in Iraq and Syria is stabilization, helping to get the water turned back on, the electricity flowing, kids back in schools. But in terms of building roads and bridges and large-scale reconstruction projects like we saw the United States engaged in 10-plus years ago, that’s something that the U.S. Government is no longer involved with.

We instead will look on – look to other nations to assist with that as well. We are continuing to assist with those programs, but other nations will help pick up the tab also.

QUESTION: So you don’t know of any specific funds that – for what --

MS NAUERT: Look, I can tell you that we are exploring different initiatives with various NGOs in order to assist. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. And one more question: Hadi al-Ameri, head of the Popular Mobilization Forces, had said that U.S. troops must leave Iraq once ISIS is defeated. What’s your comment on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Overall, the United States, as we are in other countries as well, we’re there at the request of the government. We are there at the request of the Iraqi Government. We are there to defeat ISIS. That’s all I have for you on that. Okay?

QUESTION: So if – his plan is to use the parliament to put pressure on the Iraqi Government to ask U.S. forces to leave. If that happens, you’ll just pick up and leave?

MS NAUERT: Laurie, I just don’t have anything more for you on that. We are there at the request of the Iraqi Government. Okay?

QUESTION: Heather, you said --

MS NAUERT: I’ll take one last one. Alicia, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. On the Nobel Peace Prize --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- could you comment on the U.S. decision to not send its ambassador to attend the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony this year honoring the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons?

MS NAUERT: I have a few notes on that one right here, as a matter of fact. So the United States was not the only country to not send its ambassador. The United Kingdom, France, and the United States agreed on our attendance with the Nobel Institute. The United States will be represented, instead of by its ambassador, by the acting deputy chief of mission to the Nobel Peace Prize awards ceremony on December 10th in Oslo. The United States is overall committed to preserving peace and creating the conditions for nuclear disarmament. That’s a goal, of course, we share with many other nations. Okay?

QUESTION: And could you comment on whether this is indeed an ideological decision to not attend because ICAN was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize this year?

MS NAUERT: Look, I don’t have anything more for you on that. It was a decision that was made on the part of the U.S. Government and other governments as well, not just the United States.

Okay. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:37 p.m.)

DPB # 67

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 - October 24, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





October 24, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



SECRETARY 'S TRAVEL



AFGHANISTAN



IRAQ/IRAN/REGION



PAKISTAN



SYRIA/RUSSIA



SYRIA/COUNTERTERRORISM



TURKEY



NORTH KOREA/REGION



INDONESIA



RUSSIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:30 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Okay, got a couple top pieces of other news I want to start bringing you right now. Hey, Michelle. How are you? And starting out with something that’s taken place and that is a trade forum right now.

The Central Asia Trade Forum, a USAID-funded project, took place in Kazakhstan on October 18th and 19th. This year’s forum saw a new record for participation with more than 1,000 entrepreneurs, industry leaders, donors, and government officials from 15 countries in South Central Asia, including Afghanistan and other countries as well.

The forum focused on future growth, trade, transport, and horticulture. The forum hosted discussions on trade and economic growth in Central Asia as well as business-to-business networking opportunities, a trade exhibition, national – pardon me – exhibits, and certification standards training for horticulture specialists. Business-to-business networking is just one aspect of this. Preliminary results saw more than $15 million in signed letters of intent to conduct future deals in the region. We’re looking forward to Uzbekistan holding next year’s forum.

In addition to that, I’d like to mention to you our Deputy Secretary John Sullivan was in Mexico yesterday. He traveled to Mexico, and during his trip he delivered remarks to the annual Mexican Business Summit, where he reaffirmed the importance of the U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship. Deputy Secretary Sullivan also met with Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto, who delivered a keynote address at the summit. The deputy secretary then hosted a meeting with U.S. and Mexican business leaders who attended the summit. They discussed business opportunities and challenges for both countries.

Throughout the events, Deputy Secretary Sullivan reaffirmed the strong collaborative bilateral relationship with Mexico, a relationship that goes beyond economic ties and contributes to the security and prosperity of the American people.

Today, the deputy secretary met with the Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Videgaray, in Mexico City to discuss our continuing joint efforts to dismantle transnational criminal organizations. Additionally, the two leaders noted their mutual concern about Venezuela’s retreat from democratic principles. The deputy secretary and Secretary Videgaray also reviewed other issues, including migration from Central America. Deputy Secretary Sullivan also met with American and local staff at our U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, where he had the chance to learn firsthand about the good work that our folks are doing down in Mexico. If I get any further – anything further on the deputy secretary’s trip, I will certainly bring that to you.

In addition to that, I know we have a few – fewer bodies in this room today this week because a lot of folks are traveling with Secretary Tillerson, but also with Ambassador Haley. So I’d like to give you a brief update on some of her travel and some of his travel as well.

Ambassador Haley is visiting Ethiopia, South Sudan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo this week. She’s currently in Ethiopia, where she held meetings with the prime minister and also African Union commissioner for political affairs. USUN has provided some readouts of those meetings, so I’d refer you to USUN for those specific readouts.

Today, Ambassador Haley visited Nguenyyiel – that’s a refugee camp in Gambela. It hosts thousands of refugees who fled the violence in South Sudan. Ambassador Haley is investigating the critical role that the UN and the United States play in humanitarian assistance, facilitating a political process and promoting peace in those countries. She’s looking at ways to make the UN operations, especially peacekeeping missions, for which the United States is by far the largest donor, and they’re looking for things – to do things more efficiently.

Ambassador Haley will deliver a strong message that the governments of South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo – that we need to make progress towards sustained political solutions as soon as possible, and that their governments need to stop making the work of aid workers and peacekeepers more difficult. She’ll also hear directly from refugees and internally displaced people, as she did today in Gambela. They’ve fled the violence, especially the children, who have been affected in so many ways by that.

Finally, the President has announced his travel to Asia. That is upcoming, so I’d like to provide a few details for you on that. The President, as announced by the White House, will make his first official visit to Asia from November 3rd to November 14th, with stops in Japan, the Republic of Korea, China, Vietnam, and also the Philippines. The President’s travel will underscore his commitment to longstanding United States alliances and partnership, call on the international community to join together in maximizing pressure on North Korea, and reaffirm the United States leadership in promoting a free and open Indo-Pacific region. The trip will be the President’s longest trip to date, underscoring the importance he places on the Indo-Pacific region, and demonstrating the importance of robust international engagement in defense of U.S. national security and economic prosperity for the American people.

And finally, a little bit about Secretary Tillerson’s travel. As many of you know, he departed the United States late last week for Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He took part in discussions in Riyadh, in Doha. He made a trip to Afghanistan; also going to Iraq; Pakistan as well; New Delhi, India, where he is right now, and then he will head on to Geneva. And I believe he returns on Friday.

So a little bit of an update for you there. And with that, I’d be happy to take your questions.

QUESTION: Great.

MS NAUERT: You want to start?

QUESTION: Yeah. Let’s pick it up right there at the Secretary’s travels to Afghanistan, just a little bit of housekeeping.

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: Why did the State Department tweet out that the Secretary was holding meetings in Kabul when he was actually at Bagram?

MS NAUERT: Well, first of all, I think it was a mistake on the part of our folks, the traveling staff and so – and in addition to that, our embassy. That was something that the – that we didn’t put out from this building, and I think it was just a simple mistake that happened.

QUESTION: So that wasn’t connected then to the Afghan Government’s decision to publicly release a doctored photo of the Secretary?

MS NAUERT: Not to my awareness. No, no.

QUESTION: Okay. Does the – is the State Department okay with the Government of Afghanistan putting out doctored photographs of the Secretary?

MS NAUERT: I think I’d have to refer you to the Government of Afghanistan and also the Secretary’s traveling staff. I’m not there, so I don't have awareness of how all of this unfolded. But I think it was a simple mistake.

QUESTION: The – the part – on the U.S. side it was a simple mistake, not as far as the doctored photo?

MS NAUERT: On the U.S. part in terms of putting Kabul versus Bagram. I think that was a U.S. mistake. I think the Afghan Government changed those photos probably to make it aesthetically more pleasing, but I’ve not talked to Afghanistan about that, and I’d just refer you to the Secretary’s staff about it.

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: Does it bother you at all that they did that?

MS NAUERT: Again, I think probably why they did it is to make the photo look better. I mean, we never like doctored photos, but also understand that perhaps they wanted to present a better image than having met at Bagram. But again, that’s really all I have for you on that.

QUESTION: Why did the Secretary go from, let’s say, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf region, went to Afghanistan, then back to Iraq? Wouldn’t it have been better to go directly, let’s say, from the region to Iraq and then on to Afghanistan, then on to Pakistan? Was there any reason for that?

MS NAUERT: Well, I’m not a pilot and I’m not a part of our Diplomatic Security, so I’m not --

QUESTION: Obviously. What I’m saying was there --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- did that trip happen so suddenly, that there was an urgent that forced him to do that, to Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think – I mean, there’s a clear security issue in the region, Afghanistan in particular. We’re all aware of that. So for security reasons, we don’t announce some pieces of travel, so it can be unannounced travel and happen just at the last minute if it’s determined that it can be safely done.

QUESTION: Are you disappointed that, according to press reports, he was received rather tepidly, there was a tepid reception for the Secretary in Iraq, in Baghdad?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that.

QUESTION: Follow up to that?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: What’s your response to the statements of Iranian-backed militia figures, like Qais al-Khazali that – and they’re responding to Secretary Tillerson – that it’s the United States who should leave Iraq and not them? And are you concerned now about increased terrorism – Iranian terrorism against U.S. troops, as we saw during Operation Iraqi Freedom?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So the United States operates in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi Government. We are there, a part of working in concert with the Iraqi Government and the many members of the D-ISIS coalition. Our aim is to take out ISIS and to assist with that. So when the Iraqi Government tells us they’re done with us, I guess that that would be the case.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, despite Secretary Tillerson’s warnings to Baghdad against further aggression against the Kurds, there were another three attacks today. He said in Baghdad – he said to the prime minister that’s it, don’t attack the Kurds anymore. They’ve attacked again. What is your response to those attacks?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I would say we’re certainly aware of those reports, Laurie. We’re monitoring the situation very carefully, very closely in Iraq. We have maintained, from this podium and throughout the building, in addition to our people who are on the ground working with Iraqi Government officials every single day, also our friends in the north, that we want dialogue. We want calm; we want dialogue. We don’t want any violent acts being taken by anyone on any side.

QUESTION: But do you consider punitive measures if the Iraqis don’t listen?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to forecast what we may or may not do. I can just tell you that we’ve had a lot of conversations with the Government of Iraq and others as well in the region.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: Follow-up?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yeah. Let’s stay on Iraq for now, if we have additional questions on Iraq.

QUESTION: Follow-up?

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you. So Amnesty International has collected what it calls evidence from satellite images, videos, and witness interviews and victims that tens of thousands of Kurds, mostly Kurds, have been displaced from Tuz Khurmatu in Diyala by Iran-backed – because of the attack from the Iran-backed militias and Iraqi Government. Have you seen that report that came out today from Amnesty?

MS NAUERT: I have not seen the report and I’ve not seen any pictures. So I’m sorry, I’m not going to comment on something that I haven’t seen myself.

QUESTION: And just on Secretary Tillerson’s warning that the Iran-supported militias have to leave the country, do you have a timeframe during which they must leave, or just a warning?

MS NAUERT: I think the Secretary was – was really speaking to what a lot of people are concerned about, and that is Iranian influence in the region but also in Iraq. So that is a concern of the Secretary’s. I think we’ve made that clear in the past and that’s as far as I’m going to go on that.

Okay. Hey, Michelle.

QUESTION: On that same subject, Iraq is one that didn’t seem to be concerned in response to the words that the Secretary used. So what do you think of the way that they framed it, that there are no foreign troops here, that people who are here are just advising and assisting? Does that just add to the State Department’s concern?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think we recognize that there are various groups, that there are Iraqi forces that are – the PMF, for example, that are a part of the Iraqi Government forces, but where there is also an Iranian influence, so that’s something that we fully recognize.

QUESTION: But the fact that – I mean, the Secretary uses such strong words saying that these militias and these Iranian-backed groups need to get out. Iraq doesn’t seem concerned about it in the least. Is that going to be a problem?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know, Michele. I don’t know the answer to that. If – for any additional questions on that, I’d just refer you to the Secretary.

QUESTION: Iran’s chief of staff today said that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and Qasem Soleimani had spoiled an American-Israeli plot to create a second Israel in the Kurdistan region.

MS NAUERT: What? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: They said that --

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that, Laurie.

QUESTION: Well, that --

MS NAUERT: I’m not. Really, I mean --

QUESTION: But don’t you think that stopping the fighting would be an effective – a good counter to Iranian efforts to extend its influence into – into Kurdistan?

MS NAUERT: We would certainly call for calm on all sides. We talk about that a lot. We expressed a lot of concern about the pending referendum prior to the referendum, the concern that this would back Iraq away from a unified government. That remains a concern of ours and that is being borne out in some of the actions we’re seeing taken in Iraq right now.

Okay. Shall we move on?

QUESTION: Turkey? (Inaudible.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead. Let’s – we’ll go to Pakistan real quick. Hey, Rich.

QUESTION: Staying on the trip --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Qatar.

QUESTION: -- the Secretary in Islamabad today, following the meeting, Pakistani Government essentially says it denies that there is a safe haven issue within its borders. Does that mean that the next step is cuts in aid sanctions? What’s the consequence of today’s meeting?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. That I’m not sure. We – I don’t want to forecast anything that could come in the future. The Secretary said that today and so I’m just going to have to let his words stand for themselves.

QUESTION: And do we have a readout of how the meetings went?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have a readout, I’m afraid.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

MS NAUERT: If I do get one, I will certainly provide it to you. If Robert has one that I don’t have access to, I will let you know. Okay?

QUESTION: Heather, on the refugees. Heather --

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Pakistan?

QUESTION: No, Iraq?

QUESTION: North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: I wanted to go to the refugee situation and the fact that today --

MS NAUERT: In?

QUESTION: In the United States, and the fact that today was the last day of a suspension of refugee processing. I wondered if the issues that had cause for the suspension itself had been resolved and if new measures have been implemented for screening, or what the timeline might be on that taking place?

MS NAUERT: So the announcement will be made – as many of you are aware, the State Department is participating in that along with – I believe it’s DHS and the White House later today. So I don’t want to get ahead of any of those conversations or what they will be presenting, so I’m just going to have to ask you to hold off on that until that takes place later. I think it’s 3:30 or so, so we’re trying to be wrapped up so you all can join in on that one.

QUESTION: North Korea?

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: North Korea?

QUESTION: Syria.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s go to Syria, then.

QUESTION: Very quickly, first of all, are you aware of the Security Council resolution that failed? You – sorry, you called for the Security Council to meet so they can extend the mandate of the Joint Investigative Mechanism?

MS NAUERT: On the Joint Investigative Mechanism, yes, yes.

QUESTION: And the Russians just cast a veto.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: You have any comment on that?

MS NAUERT: I do. Bear with me one second. Okay? I’ve got a lot of stuff to go through today.

So what Said is talking about, for those of you who haven’t followed it, the UN Security Council voted to not renew the mandate of the Joint Investigative Mechanism. That is set to expire in mid-November. You may recall a couple months ago the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the OCPW, had a Fact-Finding Mission that would determine whether or not chemical weapons were used in Syria. They issued the report – the OPCW – confirming that chemical weapons had been used. The next step in that was for the Joint Investigative Mechanism to determine culpability, who is responsible for that. That is something that is still underway.

Today’s piece of news is that the UN Security Council voted with the participation of Russia to not renew that mandate. That is, of course, a concern of ours. We see that as important in determining who is responsible for those attacks that killed so many innocent people – women, children, the elderly – in Syria.

The mandate of the JIM is to identify who used the chemical weapons. Russia had indicated that it would veto that measure. They say they wanted to wait until the Joint Investigative Mechanism’s forthcoming report that’s set to be released October the 26th. They said that they would do that before deciding on whether the mechanism should be extended or not. Russia and also Bolivia voted against the measure, China and Kazakhstan abstained, and 11 countries voted to extend.

In addition to that, I just want to make it clear that we are disappointed. We are very disappointed that Russia put what it considered to be political considerations over the Syrian people who were just so brutally murdered.

QUESTION: So what is the fate, in your opinion, of the JIM? What happens next?

MS NAUERT: That I don’t know. I’m not going to forecast what then happens. I can put you in touch with our folks at the UN who might have a better answer on that.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: If we may stay on Syria just for a little bit.

MS NAUERT: Okay, yeah. We’ll stay on Syria for a minute. Then we’ll --

QUESTION: Of course, the State Department issued a statement about the victory in Raqqa and so on, but again, we go back to the same questions we asked you last week: What happens next?

MS NAUERT: You’re not going to ask me about passports and health insurance, are you?

QUESTION: No. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: You’re doing – you’re providing a great deal of help to that area.

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) We’re trying to provide you information, but that I can’t get for you.

QUESTION: Yes, absolutely. No, I’m saying that there were reports, all kinds of reports alleging that the coalition and the United States Air Force has been guilty – or not – may be responsible for some bombings that resulted in many civilian deaths. Do you have any comment on that?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that, what you’re referring to, in particular. I’d have to refer you to the Department of Defense if you have any specific questions about that. I mean, I can say overall – and we’ve said this a lot before – that the U.S. takes civilian casualties and the issue of that very, very seriously. There is a reporting mechanism for that. There are a lot of investigations that are set off when there are accusations of that. But any specific accusations or claims of that taking place I’m just not aware of today.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that the race between the Syrian Democratic Forces and the Syrian army toward Deir ez-Zour and that – and the surrounding areas and so on might result in some sort of a clash that the U.S. might be drawn into?

MS NAUERT: I think that’s just a hypothetical situation, okay? Where we are right now is a tremendous success over ISIS in Raqqa. This is still a very long road ahead of us. I’m not going to say victory for all of Syria because we are certainly not there yet, but the fact that Raqqa has been taken back from ISIS – and let’s just go back to remembering what Raqqa stood for, what Raqqa was all about for this so-called caliphate. And that is where some of the attacks against Europeans that killed so many civilians were plotted. You all will recall the Nice attacks, where a truck drove through a group of civilians in Nice; where the Brussels bombing was plotted. That was one of – one of Syria – excuse me, one of ISIS’s so-called twin capitals.

So it’s a tremendous success that finally, under this administration, Raqqa was taken back, and I don’t want us to lose focus on the significance of that. That’s not a U.S. success necessarily, although we were certainly part of that. It’s a Syrian success for the Syrian people, and frankly, it’s a success for all peace-loving people who want to do away with ISIS and see ISIS taken out. So if I can impress upon anything for you today, it is let’s not lose sight of the fact that we’ve had that success from afar.

QUESTION: And finally --

QUESTION: On Syria? On Raqqa?

QUESTION: And finally, the Russians are saying that 80 percent – ISIS used to control like 80 percent of Syria; today they only control 5. Do you agree with that assessment or have any figure on that?

MS NAUERT: I think we have some different figures on that. I just don’t have them in front of me. But nevertheless, we’ve helped, with coalition backing, retake much of Syria from ISIS.

QUESTION: On the Raqqa question?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon said at a conference earlier this week that the ouster of ISIS from Raqqa marked the physical annihilation of the Islamic State caliphate. Given that there is still ISIS territory in the Deir ez-Zour area and others, do you consider the caliphate to be defeated? In other words, the President’s goal of defeating this – has that been accomplished, or can you give us some ballpark of how close we are to that point?

MS NAUERT: We’re not there yet.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: I would love to be able to claim that we have fully defeated ISIS, but what is significant is that we’ve been able to take back now two of their twin capitals from ISIS. One was Mosul and the other was Raqqa. And so the fact that the coalition, 73 countries and partner organizations, have collectively defeated ISIS in that area and taken that back. We hope to be able to get people, civilians, back into Raqqa when it is safe to do so. We have not won the fight yet, but we’ve won the battle, and this is a significant battle.

QUESTION: A question on Syria?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on --

QUESTION: Syria? On Syria?

QUESTION: Raqqa.

MS NAUERT: Okay, on Raqqa. Hi.

QUESTION: Heather, you said a moment ago that Raqqa was – under this administration, Raqqa --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- was retaken. But you would acknowledge, right, that this was a multi-administration effort and the whole counter-ISIS strategy was originated under the previous administration?

MS NAUERT: The previous administration tried. But President Trump, and under this administration, we have doubled down on the efforts to take back all of the territory that had been taken by ISIS. There were so many horrific things that happened over the past few years. Let me please remind you of the burning of the Jordanian Air Force pilot by ISIS, the beheadings of adults and children, what had been done to Yezidis, what had been done to Christians – you name it, horrific acts. Those horrific acts will still happen on occasion now, but they are not happening the way that they were before. This administration has redoubled its efforts, and we are having success and we are seeing that now.

QUESTION: But the previous administration got this started, right?

MS NAUERT: Look – well, they were forced to. Right? We had ISIS taking over large swaths of country that our men and women had fought alongside not just Iraqis but other governments. We had fought to take these lands on the part of the Iraqi Government in many of these places, and then we saw all of those successes disappear when ISIS came in with their black flags and took over Fallujah, et cetera, many other places as well.

And now we have been able to successfully, with the backing of the coalition partners and the Government of Iraq and others, take back this territory. And hopefully, we’re going to be able to get civilians back in place again.

QUESTION: Syria?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else?

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Go ahead.

QUESTION: North Korea?

QUESTION: In response to your statement that said PKK leader Abdullah Ocalan doesn’t merit veneration, YPG released a video featuring its fighters in Raqqa praising Ocalan. So U.S.-backed YPG militia believes Ocalan merit – merits veneration. Do you have a response to this?

MS NAUERT: These are the posters, right, of what I would – what I’m saying --

QUESTION: Yes. After the posters, they released a video basically in response to your comments.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I’m not aware of this video that was released, and a lot of comments and things that come in from either leaders or groups around the world, I’m not going to comment on in particular. But --

QUESTION: But these are your partners.

MS NAUERT: Hold on, hold on. But what I can tell you is that the liberation of Raqqa has been a clear accomplishment not just for the coalition, but most importantly, for the Syrian people. We expect all parties – and this would be included in this video, I suppose, that you reference – to avoid actions that would be seen as offensive or create any additional tensions.

The United States Government works closely with Turkey, as you are well aware. You’re a reporter from Turkey; you work for the government publication, government-private partnership publication. We work with Turkey to try to fight terrorism and increase regional stability.

QUESTION: So it’s a private company. It doesn’t --

MS NAUERT: Oh, yours is?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: It’s not owned by the --

MS NAUERT: No government funding, right? No government funding?

QUESTION: No, no government funding.

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay. Mm-hmm. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Russia?

MS NAUERT: That’s all I have on Turkey.

QUESTION: India?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s go to North Korea, and then we have to wrap it up, gang. Hi.

QUESTION: Heather, thank you very --

MS NAUERT: By the way, I saw you at the Pentagon briefing yesterday.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you very much.

MS NAUERT: So yep, I saw you on TV.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I’m over – everywhere. (Laughter.)

On North Korea, recently North Korean foreign ministry officials emphasized that North Korean nuclear is non-negotiable on the table. In this regard, what is the United States expect for dialogue with North Korea and what issues would be concerned?

MS NAUERT: Look, Janne, we’ve talked about this a lot before. The United States would very much like to be able to negotiate with North Korea. We are not there yet. North Korea continues to test ballistics; in addition, conduct nuclear tests. That is an indication that they’re not serious about sitting down and having conversations, and I’ll just leave it at that. Okay?

QUESTION: But doesn’t United States have any preconditions to talk to the North Korean (inaudible)?

MS NAUERT: They are not showing us that they are interested in sitting down to talk. Our position on this hasn’t changed. It was the same last week; it was the same the week before. Okay. They need to show us that they are serious.

Anything else on North Korea?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: What is the State Department’s position on the President potentially visiting the DMZ?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware that we had – I’m certainly aware that that is under conversation, under negotiation, whether or not the President would visit there. I’m just not aware if the Secretary has had that conversation with the White House.

QUESTION: Heather?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: A quick one on Indonesia, if I may.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Can we – anything else on DPRK before we move on?

QUESTION: North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: Senator Corker said this morning that the President should leave foreign policy – in particular, he referenced Secretary Tillerson’s efforts to talk to North Korea, and he said the President should leave foreign policy to the professionals. And so at the State Department, what is your reaction to his comments? And also, can we expect to see North Korea back on --

MS NAUERT: Let me get to your first one first. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of all the United States. The President sets the standard. The President and his administration will give us our marching orders, if you will. The Secretary and the State Department do all of this – our actions, our diplomacy – on behalf of the administration, on behalf of the President, on behalf of the American people and the White House as well. So that is where things stand. Our diplomacy effort, our peaceful pressure campaign certainly continues. The United – United Nations just announced some devices and things that could no longer be sent to and from North Korea. We were pleased to see that action take place. We continue to pursue our peaceful pressure campaign. The Secretary, I know, looks very much forward to traveling with the President on the President’s Asia trip and helping the administration any way he can.

Okay, anything else on DPRK?

QUESTION: North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Hi. Hi.

QUESTION: You said the President – he’s looking forward to traveling with the President.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you tell us which parts of the Asia trip he’ll be traveling with the President?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any of the actual dates to be able to provide you just yet, but when I do, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: But he’ll be traveling to participate in some of the multilateral meetings?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, some of the meetings and some of the stops. I’m just not sure which ones exactly. We’re still working out the details.

QUESTION: India. India.

MS NAUERT: Okay, anything else on DPRK?

QUESTION: North Korea.

QUESTION: India.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Russia.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. We’ll go --

QUESTION: I want to stay in Indonesia, Asia.

MS NAUERT: Okay, all right. We’ll stay in Asia before we go to Russia. Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: A quick one on Indonesia.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have anything to add on this unfortunate incidence that its military chief was denied boarding to a – a flight to the United States? And then could you please address the anti-U.S. sentiment because of this incidence, and is there any diplomatic repercussion? Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay, hold on. Okay. So my understanding is and I’ve been told that this was all worked out, that our embassy has discussed the matter with the foreign minister on October the 23rd. We conveyed our regret and also our commitment to the partnership with Indonesia. It’s certainly an important one. The United States and Jakarta are in close communication with the Indonesian Government. This was not a decision that was made on the part of the State Department – I want to make that clear. So for anything else, I would just have to refer you to Customs and Border Protection for various decisions that were made prior.

QUESTION: So my understanding is he was given a chance to rebook but he choose not to come here. Why is that – why did that happen?

MS NAUERT: I would have to refer you to him, but I – to him or his office, but I know we would certainly look forward to welcoming him here. Okay?

QUESTION: Could you address the anti-U.S. sentiment --

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. Okay? All right. Last one.

QUESTION: I wanted to follow up on a bill passed earlier this year by Congress which required the identification of intelligence and military sectors within Russia to be sanctioned, and the deadline was October 1st. I believe senators are calling for the sanctions to be made and the authority was designated to the State Department.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So we’ve certainly heard that some members of Congress are concerned about the timeline of this. I know this was something that was discussed on Capitol Hill and this is something that the Secretary discussed recently in some of his media interviews. The sanctions bill includes a requirement that the State Department identify individuals linked to Russian defense and also intelligence operations that could be subject to new penalties, so we are working to try to complete that process. I believe the original deadline that we were given was about a two-month process. My understanding – and I’m not working on this myself – but from our people who are working on it, they tell me that it’s pretty complicated, that it can take some time, that they’re working to complete the process and provide the public guidance to – certainly to the relevant people just as soon as possible. I know that Congress is concerned about it. The Secretary addressed this about a week or so ago, and he said we’re being “careful to develop the guidance that companies need, because there are business entities that need guidance” and “there are important allies and partners in NATO, other parts of the world, who need specific guidance so that they do not run afoul of the sanctions act as well.” So as soon as we get that all put together, we’ll certainly let you know.

Okay, I’ve got to leave.

QUESTION: Can you comment on the tit-for-tat between you and the Russians as far as the press is concerned? You are de-credentialing, let’s say, Russia Today and Sputnik --

MS NAUERT: That we are doing what?

QUESTION: I mean – you are taking – you wanted them to register as foreign agents, Russia Today and Sputnik and so on, and in turn they want to do the same thing to Radio Liberty and Voice of America and other places. So do you have comment on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So first, I can tell you a little bit about the – there are a couple things. There’s the Russia’s foreign agent law, and that is very different from what we have here. Russia’s foreign agent law has been interpreted to apply to organizations that receive even minimal funding from any foreign sources, government or private, and engage in political activity, defined so broadly as it covers nearly all civic advocacy.

Now, in the United States, FARA, as we call it, that is a registration that is simply triggered when an entity or an individual engages in political activity. When the United States tells someone to register under a foreign agent requirement, we don’t impact or affect the ability of them to report news and information. We just have them register. It’s as simple as that. Russia handles things very differently. But all they have to do is register, and it’s a pretty simple process, okay?

All right, guys. I’ve got to leave it at that. Thank you, everybody. Thanks for joining us.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:02 p.m.)

DPB # 59

He returns on Thursday

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 - October 12, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





October 12, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



VENEZUELA



DEPARTMENT/TRAVEL



PAKISTAN



CUBA



UNITED NATIONS/ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



RUSSIA



IRAQ



TURKEY



IRAN



DEPARTMENT



IRAN



UAE/NORTH KOREA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:58 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi, everyone. So quiet today.

QUESTION: It’s cold.

MS NAUERT: Compared to the White House, too. Did you all watch the briefing there? We’ll get that fixed. Put on a sweater, Andrea. (Laughter.)

Good afternoon. No, it was actually – it was nice to watch the White House briefing today and see General Kelly out there, and I especially appreciated the kind remarks that he made about the State Department and the work that we do here in – that we do here each and every day. So – and then it gave me a greater appreciation for all of you and how calm and respectful we try to keep the briefings here. So wanted to just say thanks to all of you for doing that.

QUESTION: You’re welcome.

MS NAUERT: Start with a couple things today. First, I’d like to talk a little bit about

Venezuela. We’ve not talked as much about Venezuela recently, but as many of you know, there is a gubernatorial election set to take place this Sunday, October the 15th. The United States and the international community are paying close attention to this vote. The United States calls on the regime to hold free and fair elections.

We note with great concern that the regime will not permit the presence of independent, international electoral observers. We call on the Government of Venezuela to permit independent domestic observers to fully monitor the election and the tabulation of its results.

The United States is concerned that a series of actions by the National Electoral Council calls into question the fairness of the electoral process. We continue to support the Venezuelan people as they work toward a democratic, peaceful, and hopefully prosperous future. We continue to

think of them. We know it’s a difficult time, certainly, down there.

In addition to that, I’d like to announce some travel. Our Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan will travel to Tokyo and Seoul October 16 through 19. He will be in the region to participate in the October 18 vice foreign minister level U.S.-ROK-Japan trilateral meeting, which is hosted by the Republic of Korea in Seoul. The trilateral meeting will focus on strategic coordination related to the urgent threat from the DPRK’s nuclear ballistic missile program. The three leaders will also discuss regional and global areas of cooperation.

The Deputy Secretary will be in Tokyo October 16 and 17 for bilateral meetings there. He will then travel to Seoul October 18 and 19 for bilateral and trilateral meetings. During his visit to both Tokyo and Seoul, the Deputy Secretary will also meet with U.S. embassy staff, members of our U.S. forces, as well as representatives from the business community and civil society as well.

And with that, I will gladly take your questions.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks. I’m going to start with the situation in Pakistan --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- and the rescue of the – this family. The Secretary’s statement on this – he made a large reference to the work of the ambassador, Ambassador Hale, and the staff at the Islamabad embassy. And I’m just wondering if you could be a little bit more specific about what their role was. What is it that he is being so appreciative for, specifically?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think one of the things the Secretary likes to do here is to highlight the work that our colleagues at the State Department do each and every day. That work would not be possible without the facilitation of – on the part of our folks on the ground.

In terms of getting too into specifics about who did what when, I’m just not going to be able to provide that today. But we always want to thank our colleagues who were involved in this, involved in helping to facilitate the return of any Americans.

QUESTION: Well, the Pakistani officials say that the family was rescued and flown by helicopter from where it was that they were rescued to the embassy in Islamabad. Can you confirm that?

MS NAUERT: I cannot confirm that. I can say that the Pakistani military, acting on information that we provided, were able to secure the release of this family. We are tremendously happy to have these folks returning, coming home.

That is one of the things that the President had said at the very beginning of this administration. He gave this assignment to Secretary Tillerson and others in the national security community, to say, “Let’s bring our Americans home.” You saw the President do that with the return of Aya Hijazi from Egypt back in April, I believe it was. We saw that happen with Otto Warmbier, sadly, in the condition that he was. But nevertheless, that was a priority the President set in bringing Americans home, and now we’ve seen it with this family of five coming home. We are pleased that Caitlan Coleman and her family have done that. The family has been – her family back here in the United States has been hoping and praying for this for many years now. But I want to be clear on saying how grateful we are to the Government of Pakistan. Without their assistance, this would not have been made possible. It was critical, and we will certainly not forget that.

QUESTION: Okay. And you say – you repeated several times “coming home.” Where exactly is the family now and are they, in fact, coming back to either the U.S. or Canada?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to be able to confirm any of that for you. I know the family had asked for some privacy at this time, and some of that will be up to the family to be able to explain where they decide to go and when they decide to go there.

QUESTION: Okay. But when you say “coming home” it doesn’t literally --

MS NAUERT: I just mean -- QUESTION: Okay. All right. MS NAUERT: -- out of captivity. QUESTION: Gotcha.

MS NAUERT: I mean, the family, obviously, was in a very dire situation. You all had seen the videos of the family, and they were in distress. So when I say “coming home” it doesn’t mean --

QUESTION: Fair enough.

MS NAUERT: -- here necessarily. Andrea, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Question on Cuba. Our colleagues --

MS NAUERT: Let’s – can we stick region first?

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Then I’ll come back to you on that, certainly.

QUESTION: There are some reports that the couple doesn’t want to go on a U.S. plane, that they have concerns about the future of mainly Joshua Boyle because of his past, being married to a woman who has been held – whose brother has been held in Guantanamo. Is it true? Do you have confirmation of this hesitance?

MS NAUERT: I appreciate that a lot of people will want the details, especially details that sound pretty salacious. I’ve seen some of those media reports, and I can only say that we’re grateful that the family has been released; we’re grateful to the Government of Pakistan as well as the Government of Canada. We’re looking forward to having those folks go home, where

they choose to go. And beyond that, I’m not going to be able to comment on the details.

QUESTION: Salacious?

QUESTION: Can you confirm that the --

QUESTION: I’m not sure that --

MS NAUERT: Well, it sounds – I mean, you tell a good story there. It sounds pretty interesting.

Yes.

QUESTION: Can you confirm that the husband declined to board an American --

MS NAUERT: I cannot. I cannot.

QUESTION: And was there an exchange of gunfire or injuries --

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of any of that.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: The President said that this action was a sign of respect from the Pakistani Government. Does the administration believe that prior to this the Pakistani Government wasn’t respecting the U.S. and was maybe withholding information about where these Americans – where the family was?

MS NAUERT: What I can tell you is that we are very pleased with the Government of Pakistan’s response. This would not have been possible without the Government of Pakistan. With information that we provided them, they were able to secure their release. So I’m afraid I’m just not going to have a lot beyond that.

A lot of you have asked about our overall relationship with Pakistan. We’ve certainly had points where that relationship has had some challenges. That relationship isn’t going to just turn around overnight, but this is a terrific step in the right direction.

Okay? Anything else on Pakistan? Okay. Andrea, go right ahead.

QUESTION: On Cuba. Matt’s colleagues at AP have obtained an audiotape. We have not been able to independently authenticate it, but in any case, is – are there continuing health issues? Do you – does the State Department – does the United States Government believe that this an acoustic weapon? There have been reports or suggestions of another cause. And General Kelly said that the Government of Cuba could stop it, a view that I think you’ve already expressed here, that the government could stop it if they wanted to. But are we at the stage of accusing the Government of Cuba of being complicit, or of causing it?

MS NAUERT: Here’s where we are, exactly where we are right now. An investigation is still underway. We don’t know who or what is responsible for it. You labeled the attacks a certain way, and I’m just not going to label it that way, because we still don’t know exactly what the cause or what the source is.

General Kelly, when he said we believe that they can stop the attacks, I think what he was referring to was, one, we have the Vienna Convention. And under the Vienna Convention, that government, the Government of Cuba, has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our diplomatic staff. That didn’t happen. But there’s also another well-known fact, and that is that in a small

country like Cuba, where the government is going to know a lot of things that take place within its borders, they may have more information than we are aware of right now.

But I want to be clear: the investigation is still underway. We don’t know what is causing it and we don’t know who is responsible for it.

QUESTION: And have you been able to authenticate anything regarding the audio that has been distributed by the Associated Press?

MS NAUERT: I saw that. I’ve not heard the tape. We cannot authenticate that tape in any way. But an investigation is aggressive and it continues.

QUESTION: And is the investigation presumably into the cause of the medical problem as well as who might have perpetrated it? Is there another government that might be involved?

MS NAUERT: We don’t know. We don’t know who or what is responsible for it?

QUESTION: Is there anyone beyond the numbers that you already gave us who have still been

– who have been affected by this? Is it continuing?

MS NAUERT: The last numbers that I provided – I believe it was 22 – still holds, but I want to be cautious on that and remind you all – and I say this every single time – we continue to investigate. We continue to monitor the health and the health status of our staff. People are still able to avail themselves to testing. We unfortunately cannot rule out that there may be additional people who have been affected. As soon – if that were to happen, if we have additional people, I will certainly bring that to you as soon as I can, but it would have to be medically confirmed.

But right now that number stands at 22.

QUESTION: Heather, has the position of the United States Government changed since it made its most recent announcement on staffing in Cuba? I mean, General Kelly seemed to imply that

– I mean, I know you’re talking about the Vienna Convention and protecting American diplomats there, but it seemed as if he were saying that Cuba has the ability or its government has the ability to stop these attacks, not just protect Americans. Has something changed since the U.S. announcement?

MS NAUERT: Not to my awareness, no. Okay. Anything else on Cuba?

QUESTION: Cuba.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Cuba. All right. Did you have Cuba? Okay.

QUESTION: That sound that the AP released --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is that still a sound that diplomats who are there are hearing?

MS NAUERT: I would never confirm that sound. I have not heard it. I read a – an article printed out online. I’ve not heard anything. I can’t confirm any kind of sounds that some alleged to take place.

QUESTION: And the existing --

QUESTION: Can you confirm that they’re hearing anything still in --

MS NAUERT: I cannot confirm that, no.

QUESTION: We exist in a multimedia environment now, so you don’t have to just print it out. You can go online and click.

MS NAUERT: At least it wasn’t in an old newspaper. (Laughter.) QUESTION: You can click on the – click on it and listen to it, if you so choose. MS NAUERT: All right. Anything else on Cuba?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can we go --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead, Michele.

QUESTION: I’m a little confused because Kelly today said that the U.S. believes Cuba can stop these attacks. So the State Department – I mean, is that the State Department’s position as well?

MS NAUERT: Look, there is no space in this administration on this issue of Cuba. We know for a fact that our diplomats were injured. We know for a fact that somebody or something was attempting to hurt our diplomats. The Secretary made the difficult decision to bring our people home even though we have a small staff who still remain there. All of that is the case. This is something we take extremely seriously. The investigation is aggressive. It is underway. It has not stopped. We will continue to look for the source and for the party that is responsible for this, and that’s all I’m going to have on that.

QUESTION: Okay, but you can’t – so if now the U.S. Government is saying we believe Cuba has the ability to stop this, there must be some reason to believe that.

MS NAUERT: I think I addressed that already. Cuba has a responsibility under the Vienna Convention to protect our diplomatic staff. That has not changed. It is also a well-known fact that in a small country like Cuba that has the type of regime and government it does, they tend to know things that are going on within its own borders, and I’ll just leave it at that. Okay?

QUESTION: Can we move on to --

MS NAUERT: You want to move on? Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah, to the UNESCO --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- withdrawal. I know you sent out a statement and it’s quite clear, but I just wanted to ask you to understand better: Is the reason basically what you call – that it has always had some sort of bias against Israel or the membership of the Palestinians, or are there other reasons? Are there other reasons? Because you cite the organization and so on.

MS NAUERT: Okay. So stepping back about 20 years or so – Said, you and I were teenagers then, right?

QUESTION: Oh, yeah.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I beat by at least 30 years or so.

MS NAUERT: As many of you know, Congress passed a law, and as a part of that law, any UN entity that accepts Palestinians as a member state, the U.S. Government cannot provide funding for it. The U.S. Government has looked at that. This has been a long time that the U.S. Government – that predates this Trump administration – has been taking a look at it. It’s been a long and deliberative process. That decision was finally made. A couple things went into that decision-making. One of them was a look at the cost-benefit analysis. As many of you know, we were in arrears to the tune of $550 million or so. And so the question is do we want to pay that money, and do we want to pay more money going forward, when there is actually a law that says the UN entity that accepts Palestinians as a member state can no longer receive U.S. funding. So that’s part of it financially, okay?

The second part of it is we’d like to see overall UN reform, and as a part of that, I will – I’ll just include this in that. Ambassador Nikki Haley has talked a lot about the importance of reform at

the United Nations and in entities such as this. We’d like to see the politics kept out of it, and we see with this anti-Israel bias that’s long documented on the part of UNESCO that that needs to come to an end. So the United States made the decision after a long, deliberative process to pull out.

QUESTION: But why is – things that are of historical value, things that – like in Hebron and Jericho and places like this that are thousands of years old, why would that be an anti bias to Israel for UNESCO to recognize this as a site or place worthy of recognition?

MS NAUERT: We have seen some political statements of certain sorts made on the part of UNESCO. If UNESCO wants to get back and wants to reform itself and get back to a place where they’re truly promoting culture and education and all of that, perhaps we could take another look at this, but we haven’t seen that taking place. Israel, my understanding, has also

made the decision, but I’ll refer you to the Israeli Government on that, to do the very same thing. And let me just remind you, Bashar al-Assad from Syria was one of the people who was on the Human Rights Committee at UNESCO. I mean, does that seem to make a whole lot of sense to you? Probably not.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, I will stick with heritage. But moving forward, will the United States withdraw from every UN organization that the Palestinians can become a member of?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. I only have the information on UNESCO today. Anything else on that?

QUESTION: Heather, as you’re probably aware, the Bush administration – W. Bush – when it rejoined UNESCO in 2003 I think it was, they made the case that having a seat at the table, being present in the debate and discussion would actually be beneficial to Israel and would tamp down some of the anti-Israel bias that you’re talking about here. Does – this administration doesn’t share that belief?

MS NAUERT: Look, all I can say is that this administration and the previous administration had been taking a long look at whether or not the United States should remain a member of UNESCO, and they made the determination that we were going to pull out.

QUESTION: Well, in fact, previous --

MS NAUERT: And previous administrations I just can’t comment on.

QUESTION: Well, the previous – the immediate previous administration was actually looking at ways to work around the congressional mandate on funding.

MS NAUERT: I understand. I understand.

QUESTION: That is something that --

MS NAUERT: But I just want to be clear that this review of sorts --

QUESTION: I – yeah, right.

MS NAUERT: -- has been underway for quite some time.

QUESTION: But it’s – is it fair to say that this current administration is no longer trying to find a way to work around the congressional prohibition on funding?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think we’ve made our determination, and that is to pull out of UNESCO at this time.

QUESTION: Right. So in other words, they’re never going to get their money unless – that you owe unless they reform and you rejoin. Is that --

MS NAUERT: I – I’ll leave it at that. Okay.

QUESTION: Can we go to Russia?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Still on UNESCO.

QUESTION: I have one quick follow-up on that.

MS NAUERT: Oh, sure. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Your statement said that you wanted to be sort of an observer member so that

U.S. views could be – could be included. How does that work? I mean, how – have they agreed to let you --

MS NAUERT: I can put you in touch with some of our UN international organizations experts who could probably do a deeper dive on exactly how that would work as an observer. That I just don’t have the information on.

QUESTION: One follow-up?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: But why now to pull out? Is it related to the selection of new chief to UNESCO?

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that even though this has been going on for quite – quite a long time, this review, that the review was just finalized.

QUESTION: But it’s not related to the selection of the new chief?

MS NAUERT: Not to my awareness, no. Hi, Arshad. QUESTION: So the Secretary apparently had a -- MS NAUERT: What do you want to talk about?

QUESTION: Russia.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: As I said, the Secretary had a conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov apparently. Can you give us a readout on that? And can you address the Russian foreign

ministry’s statement that Lavrov told the Secretary that the removal of the Russian flags from Russian buildings in the United States is inadmissible, is reiterating that they’re planning to file lawsuits against this, and his stating --

MS NAUERT: File lawsuits against the removal of the flag from their facilities?

QUESTION: No, over the seizure of the properties, not over the removal of the flags. Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let me back up a little bit and say our actions in – when it comes those facilities we believe is perfectly legal. This is going back a few weeks now. We did this with a lot of thought in place, and we did it in a judicious fashion. When it comes to the flags, and I’ve certainly seen what Russian media has reported and you so clearly listed that out now, the way that the Russian Government and Russian media is reporting this. I can tell you this: the flags at the former Russian consular properties in San Francisco were respectfully lowered. They’re

safely stored within each of the buildings. I think there’s no country in the world that pays greater respect to its own flag and to the flags of other nations. That is something that we take seriously. I can tell you the flag that flew here in Washington, D.C. was also taken down and is safely stored within the building right now. Russian authorities have been told that we would be able to return those flags certainly at their convenience.

QUESTION: And do you regard the respectful lowering and storage of the flags as perfectly legal? I just want to make sure that that’s legal in your eyes. I can’t imagine you would --

MS NAUERT: Taking down a flag from a property that they’ve had to vacate – is that legal or not?

QUESTION: Yep.

MS NAUERT: That’s a real question?

QUESTION: Yeah, I asked it.

MS NAUERT: I think that’s actually a respectful thing to do, to take down the flag, to fold it up

--

QUESTION: Sure.

MS NAUERT: -- to hold on to it for that government and offer it back to them. There are many governments around the world who wouldn’t take that care of another nation’s flag.

QUESTION: And how do you address their – the foreign ministry’s reported contention that Lavrov, they said, conveyed to the Secretary that your, quote, “lawless behavior,” closed quote, runs counter to the United States stated desire for a normal relationship with Russia?

MS NAUERT: I’m a little surprised at this line of questioning because it comes right out of exactly what Russia would say. Okay?

QUESTION: Well, I’m asking you to respond to what Russia said. I think that’s kind of self- evident.

MS NAUERT: I hear you just parroting sort of Russian – Russian talking points. The actions that the United States Government --

QUESTION: I’m asking you a question which is to respond to what the Russians said.

MS NAUERT: The actions that the United States Government has taken with regard to Russian consulates and facilities has been perfectly legal. I want to be clear about that. We’ve talked about this for many months now. There is nothing that was inappropriate or done wrong in any kind of fashion.

QUESTION: So can you just – I mean, why take them down? Why not just leave them there? Do you know? I mean --

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. I don’t know. I think that’s actually – my understanding is that part of our responsibility is to keep an eye on – and Robert, maybe we can get an answer on this by the end, but I believe our responsibility is to close up the facilities, make sure that they have been vacated, and make sure that the properties are maintained to a certain degree.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: I believe that’s our responsibility under the Foreign Missions Act. Is that correct?

QUESTION: Okay. I mean, if they --

MS NAUERT: Okay. So that – and so I would consider that – and I can double-check with our experts on this who would know a lot more about it than I would, but that that would be a part of it.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, if it is, then that’s the explanation.

MS NAUERT: You’re probably not going to let weeds grow out of the place, you’re probably not --

QUESTION: You’re going to take in the mail, get the newspaper? MS NAUERT: Probably get the mail and get the newspaper -- QUESTION: Take --

MS NAUERT: -- and taking down the flag and --

QUESTION: Right. I just --

MS NAUERT: Guys, beyond that, this --

QUESTION: Well, I’m just curious if that is – no, I know, but I’m just curious --

MS NAUERT: -- conversation is just going to get silly.

QUESTION: -- is that standard – SOP for when something like this happens? Do you remove all, like, ornaments or whatever decorations that may be up?

MS NAUERT: Christmas tree lights or something like that?

QUESTION: Yeah. I just --

MS NAUERT: Matt, I will check on that for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Another -- QUESTION: Can we go to Iraq? MS NAUERT: All right. Hi, Laurie. QUESTION: Hi. How are you?

MS NAUERT: I’m well, thanks. How are you?

QUESTION: Good. I have two questions. One is: Do you have any clarification or comment on reports yesterday that the Popular Mobilization Units in Iraq and other Iraqi forces were

mobilizing for an attack in the Kirkuk area? That’s my first question.

MS NAUERT: So we’ve seen those reports. We’re certainly monitoring that situation very closely. We have consistently called on the various parties to oppose violence of any sort. We do not want to see any destabilizing activities take place and distract from the fight against ISIS.

We’ve been clear about that all along. We have noted that the Iraqi Government’s prime

minister’s spokesperson has confirmed that the Iraqi Security Forces, in its positions, are only focusing on targeting ISIS. We take them at their word and would certainly hope that no violence would occur beyond going after ISIS. Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you. And my second question has to do with your general policy towards Iraq, Kurdistan in the context of Iran. And you’ve argued that a unified Iraq is a way to contain Iran, but Iran itself is very opposed to Kurdish independence. So how can it be that you and Iran are on the same side of something – you said by keeping the Kurdistan part of Iraq that’s going to contain Iran – when the Iranians evidently feel the opposite?

MS NAUERT: Laurie, I think our continued position on Iraq and a unified, stable, democratic Iraq where the – we need to keep the eye – an eye on ISIS and focusing on ISIS, and that is where our sole focus is right now: taking out ISIS, the group that has been responsible for so many horrific things, and trying to maintain some sense of stability. We were concerned all along about destabilizing activities, and now once the referendum was held, certainly it has proven to be destabilizing. So we call upon all sides to restrain from violence.

QUESTION: So just for clarification, your position as, say, opposed to the White House is not really that this is a way to contain Iran, but it’s a way to fight ISIS?

MS NAUERT: Look, our – our mission in Iraq has been, as a part of the D-ISIS Coalition, to support that coalition and the 72 or 73 members to take out ISIS. And that is why we had opposed the destabilizing activity, which we saw as the referendum in destabilizing the region and destabilizing Iraq. We’d like folks to keep their eye on the ball, and that is ISIS. Okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS NAUERT: All right. Hi.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Quickly, a follow-up on the readout from yesterday, Secretary Tillerson’s phone call with the Turkish foreign minister, where the case of detention of several American citizens were discussed. Could you confirm that if the case of the jailed American pastor was discussed by Secretary? And then – and then secondly, could you give us a number of American citizens being held in connection of last year’s coup attempt by --

MS NAUERT: Oh, goodness. I don’t know if we actually have a number of Americans who’ve

– who have been detained or held at some point on behalf of the Government of Turkey. We know that somewhere close to 200,000 have been rounded up; people who had different types of occupations and all of that. But your question – your first question was what?

QUESTION: The first one -- MS NAUERT: Pastor Brunson? QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Okay. So Secretary Tillerson spoke with his counterpart – I think it was just yesterday? Yes, yesterday. And that’s one of the issues that’s consistently brought up, the safety, the welfare, the well-being of the American pastor, Pastor Brunson. I know the President has spoken about this with his Turkish counterpart on numerous occasions. It is something that we’ve followed extremely closely. We would like to see Pastor Brunson brought home. The State Department – or members of our State Department had visited him; the last time was sometime in mid-September. The time before that was in late – late August or so. So we’re continuing to follow that story very closely, that case very closely, and would like to see him brought home.

QUESTION: Very quick follow-up?

QUESTION: Follow-up?

QUESTION: Is there any indication that the --

QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up?

QUESTION: -- diplomatic crisis or tension between Turkey and U.S. being resolved soon?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think we’d certainly hope so. We would certainly like our relationship to improve. This is a – very much tension on our relationship right now, and I think there’s no question about that.

QUESTION: Follow-up on that?

MS NAUERT: Okay, anything else -- QUESTION: Yeah, follow-up on Turkey. MS NAUERT: Turkey?

QUESTION: Turkey? QUESTION: Can we go to Iran? QUESTION: Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hold on. QUESTION: I have follow-up. QUESTION: Turkey.

MS NAUERT: Yes, Turkey. Okay. Oh, Ilhan. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi. On Turkey, today Turkish President Erdogan actually talk about Pastor Brunson as well as other stuff from the U.S. consulate. And this is his words – he said, it’s clearly he – they have linked both pastor and a consulate – staff at the consulate have links to FETO, which is the Gulenist organizations. Have you been presented any kind of evidence showing they are linked to this group?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So one of the things that we’ve asked the Government of Turkey do – to do is to provide evidence. So we have two of our locally employed staff in Turkey – we talked about this the other day – who have been detained. We would call upon the Government of Turkey to please provide us that evidence if there is evidence that they were involved in what Turkey alleges, and that is terrorism. Turkey is an important NATO ally of the United States. If they feel that these individuals were involved in that type of activity, we would certainly like to see the evidence of that.

We would also like for these individuals to be able to see their lawyers. We certainly hope that they will be able to be represented by lawyers and visited by lawyers, and we hope that the Turkish Government will fulfill its pledge that it will do so. We’ll keep an eye on that one for sure. Our – the other locally employed staff who had been summoned by the Turkish Government, we’d like to see the evidence on him as well. We have not seen any evidence that the Turkish Government says that it has.

QUESTION: Follow-up on --

QUESTION: Today, again, President Erdogan’s long speech was pretty much about U.S., and he was talking about how U.S. policy has basically made Turkey and put Turkey in a very difficult position, whether in Syria or some of the Turkish nationals arrested in this country.

Have you seen this speech? It’s very aggressive against the U.S. as far as it can --

MS NAUERT: I have not – I’ve not seen the speech. I have heard some of the comments that have come out of it. One of the things that we would like to do is we would hope for some calm, and we would hope that we can have a dialogue with the Government of Turkey. As I

mentioned, the Secretary had spoken with his counterpart just yesterday. We’ve had lots of areas, conversations, and meetings that have gone back and forth between our government and theirs.

But we also have some very real concerns about whether or not Turkey intends to cooperate with the United States in terms of its investigations. The three American – excuse me – the three locally employed staff at our embassy, at our consulates in Turkey, had all been involved in some sort of a law enforcement type role. So we are – we hope that Turkey is not trying to create some distance between us and them in that. We need to have good law enforcement cooperation between our government and theirs. And by detaining our people, that certainly calls into question where they are in this.

QUESTION: My final question: Washington Post had editorial today or yesterday, and basically saying that not all of citizens of Turkey should be punished by visa suspension, but it should be targeted officials from the AKP government or close allies, businessmen of the AKP government. Would you --

MS NAUERT: I’ve not seen that article. I’ve not seen that editorial. I’d just have to say that we don’t take an action like this lightly. It is something we certainly don’t prefer to do. People who have valid visas are still more than welcome to come to the United States. This is a suspension right now until we can further assess exactly what’s going on.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.) QUESTION: (Off-mike.) MS NAUERT: Okay? Okay.

QUESTION: Isn’t it true that President Erdogan is increasingly using a more belligerent language towards the United States of America?

MS NAUERT: Is he?

QUESTION: Is he? Yeah, I’m asking you.

MS NAUERT: Well, I haven’t monitored and compared --

QUESTION: I mean, that’s what I’m reading.

MS NAUERT: I haven’t monitored and compared all the language that he’s used now to language that he has used in the past, so I’m not going to get into characterizing that. Okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Iran?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: Turkey? Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. On Iran, the – has the United States communicated its decision to its JCPOA partners?

MS NAUERT: The Secretary has been a busy guy on the phone today. He’s been making a lot of phone calls to many of our European partners to talk a little bit about the decision that the President will announce tomorrow. So I’m not going to be very careful and not give you a whole lot on that, because the President is going to unveil his decision tomorrow.

QUESTION: But not regarding his decision in specific, but regarding the conversation, has – does – has the Secretary communicated the details of that proposal to those partners today?

MS NAUERT: So this is very close-hold at this time, as I’m sure you can imagine. I can tell you who the Secretary has spoken with, at least today. I don't have a lot of information to provide you, but I can tell you in recent days he’s spoken with the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson. I know today he spoke with Chinese State Councilor Yang. He also spoke with the French minister of foreign affairs. And he had a call with Sergey Lavrov of Russia. And the calls – I would describe them as listening calls, consulting calls, and having conversations about the overall rollout, if you will, of the plan --

QUESTION: Does he --

MS NAUERT: -- which the President will announce tomorrow.

QUESTION: Did they express their satisfaction?

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Did they express their satisfaction in the contents of the plan?

MS NAUERT: The Secretary’s literally been on the phone all day long. I know he’s been working about 22 of the last 24 hours, so I’ve not had a chance to ask him all the specifics about those calls.

QUESTION: Can you take a couple of questions on Pakistan?

QUESTION: Do you know if he plans to call the Germans and the EU High Commissioner Mogherini --

MS NAUERT: Oh, I’m --

QUESTION: -- who are also involved in --

MS NAUERT: I believe so, yes.

QUESTION: So in other words, he’s basically talking to everyone who’s party --

MS NAUERT: He’s still --

QUESTION: Everyone who’s a party to the deal, he’s trying to talk to.

MS NAUERT: That is my understanding. Yes, yes. Okay.

QUESTION: Does that include the Iranians themselves?

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure. I’m not aware of that.

QUESTION: And can you readout any of his meetings with members of the Senate or the House as well?

MS NAUERT: No I can’t.

QUESTION: You can’t confirm --

QUESTION: Can you --

QUESTION: -- he’s met with anyone?

MS NAUERT: I know that he has had some meetings, as has the White House and other representatives of the Executive Branch, but I just don’t have any specifics on that. Okay?

QUESTION: A follow up on Iran, on the Iran deal.

QUESTION: Can you take a question on Pakistan, please?

MS NAUERT: Wait, wait, wait. Okay. I’m sorry, what, miss?

QUESTION: Yes. I just need a quick clarification, is that after Trump – the President Trump decertifies this deal and if Congress --

MS NAUERT: Well, first I would take issue with --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: -- the premise of your question, okay? Because the President will announce his strategy --

QUESTION: Yes, I know.

MS NAUERT: -- and announce the overall – our Iran posture tomorrow.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: So I’m not going to comment on what it contains or what it doesn’t contain, because I’m not going to get ahead of what the President has to say.

QUESTION: This is just kind of a technical thing. I mean, if the Congress just after 60 days’ review decided to – in favor of this deal, does it mean that the President can veto the Congress regulation – the Congress resolutions?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to jump ahead of what exactly is going to happen tomorrow --

QUESTION: This kind of a --

MS NAUERT: -- and that would be a hypothetical, so I’m just not going to get into a hypothetical. Okay, guys?

QUESTION: Couple of questions on Pakistan, please?

MS NAUERT: We’re going to have to leave it there. Thank you so much.

QUESTION: Hold on. Wait, wait, wait. This is something you’re going to want to talk about.

MS NAUERT: Yeah?

QUESTION: UAE breaking ties with North Korea. Do you have anything on that?

MS NAUERT: Oh. That – I’m learning that for the first time.

QUESTION: And?

MS NAUERT: Hold on one second. Hold on, everybody. Don’t go anywhere.

QUESTION: And then – and then also, do you have any thoughts on the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation?

MS NAUERT: Yes. So first of all, UAE kicked out their – its ambassador to --

QUESTION: And said they would not hire any more --

MS NAUERT: -- the ambassador to North Korea. Very happy to hear that.

QUESTION: -- North Korean workers.

MS NAUERT: That brings to mind the Government of Italy, which did – just did the same thing about a week ago. There are many countries that are taking those steps that we have asked those countries to take. This is something that is a key part of Secretary Tillerson’s pressure campaign, which General Mattis – excuse me, General Kelly referred to today as well, the diplomacy. The diplomacy that is a huge part of that campaign to try to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. So, thrilled that the UAE has taken that step to do that.

And then your second question was, Matt?

 

QUESTION: Oh, just if you had anything – thoughts on the Hamas-Fatah latest attempt at reconciliation or (inaudible)?

 

MS NAUERT: Yes. So we certainly saw that today and we would welcome the effort for the conditions for the Palestinian Authority to fully assume responsibilities in Gaza. We see that as potentially an important step into getting the humanitarian aid in to the people who live there.

We’re going to watch those developments very closely. We’ll press forward with the Palestinian Authority, Israel, and also international donors to try to get that – improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

QUESTION: Right. And then you mentioned several times here how appreciative you are of General Kelly’s comments over at the White House.

MS NAUERT: We’ll welcome him over here any time.

QUESTION: One of the things that he also said that you didn’t mention is that – when he was asked about the administration placing – what kind of value it placed on diplomacy and the State Department, he said that he agreed with General Mattis and others that if you don’t properly fund the State Department, they’re going to have to buy more bullets.

MS NAUERT: Right.

QUESTION: Do you – does the Secretary agree with that?

MS NAUERT: I caught that. So General Kelly was giving his remarks about 20 minutes or so before I came down here, so I haven’t had the chance to talk to the Secretary about that. But I think it is a budget that we were given and we will work within the budget to the best of our ability, and one of the things we will continue to do is push ahead with diplomacy, push ahead with all the activities that our 75,000 people do around the world. That certainly won’t change.

QUESTION: All right.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Thanks, everybody. (The briefing was concluded at 3:35 p.m.)

DPB#56

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 - October 4, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





October 4, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

CHINA



WORLD'S FAIR



DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



CHINA



CUBA



PAKISTAN/REGION



INDIA



SPAIN



SAUDI ARABIA/RUSSIA/TURKEY/IRAN



DPRK



CHINA



INDIA



SYRIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:12 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: We are here after all. Hi, everybody. How are you today? We’ve had a busy day here at the State Department once again. That’s what we do – keep you all busy. Let me start off today talking with you a little bit about the U.S.-China dialogue that’s taking place here at the State Department.

Earlier today Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan hosted the inaugural U.S.-China Law Enforcement and Cybersecurity Dialogue. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Acting Secretary for Homeland Security Elaine Duke co-chaired the dialogue along with the Chinese State Councilor and Minister of Public Security Guo Shengkun. This is the last of the four dialogues that were launched by President Trump and President Xi at Mar-a-Lago in April. Its aim is to increase mutual understanding between the two nations. Consistent with the results-oriented approach of this administration’s policy toward China, the dialogue facilitated forthright and detailed discussions and resulted in bilateral cooperation on priority issues including immigration, counter-narcotics, terrorism – counterterrorism rather, and also cybersecurity.

Secondly, I wanted to give you an update on the U.S. efforts to bring the World’s Fair to Minnesota in 2023. Tomorrow on October the 5th, the United States will bring together the Bureau of International Expositions member states in Paris for a day-long symposium to discuss our bid to host the 2023 Expo in Minnesota. The bid joins – enjoys strong bipartisan support at the national, the state, and the local level. With a population of 323 million people and the largest economy in the world, the United States is an ideal expo platform to promote trade between businesses, to reach consumers, and to advance people-to-people ties.

In addition to “Minnesota Nice,” we are also focusing on “Minnesota Healthy.” The U.S. bid centers on the theme of “Healthy People, Healthy Planet,” Minnesota as a world leader in healthcare and as a great platform for promoting health and wellness and showcasing new technology.

The day-long symposium will highlight how member-states can use the power of an expo to improve the health and wellness of all. The proposed expo theme touches on all lives, all governments, and all communities. The Bureau of International Expositions General Assembly will select the host city in a vote in Paris on November the 15th, and I encourage you to check in with my in-laws when you’re there because it’s a nice place to visit.

Finally, one last thing about today. And I wanted to say this to you: Secretary Tillerson, along with the rest of us, woke up this morning to some news reports. There were news reports that caused many of us, including the Secretary, concern. You’ve all seen it. You all know what I’m talking about. It’s a report that the Secretary said just a few hours ago is clearly erroneous. The Secretary addressed that a few hours ago with all of you, and many of you had the opportunity to ask the Secretary a few questions yourselves. The Secretary chose to speak to the media. He was not asked to do this. He knew it was the right thing to do.

As a man, he is clear, he is direct, and he pulls no punches. He is not a politician who seeks the spotlight, and many in foreign policy and media circles simply don’t understand that. They think, why would somebody not want to be in front of television cameras all the time? That is not who this person is. Secretary Tillerson came to Washington to do a job. He came to Washington to serve his country. He came to Washington to serve the Trump administration. He came here to advance U.S. foreign policy goals. And he also came here, as we’ve seen this week, to keep Americans safe. I’m referring to the news what happened in Cuba and the decision to bring home our Americans who were serving down there. That is the Secretary’s top priority.

The Secretary has never considered resigning from his post. And for those who want him to do so, go ahead and keep pushing, because that will only strengthen his resolve. In my family’s part of the country, we would call that a tough old bird. Some people may not get that, but where I’m from that’s what we call it. In other circles it might be called battle hardened. Regardless, the Secretary is committed to staying here at the State Department and doing that job. I think he was very clear about that today.

I spoke with him a short while ago and I wanted to update you on one thing in particular. He spoke with the President after the Secretary’s press comments to all of you earlier today, and he told me that “Heather, it was,” quote, “a good conversation” and that they are all good. I take the Secretary at his word.

With that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Josh.

QUESTION: Sticking with that topic – hi.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: I know that you called that report erroneous. The Secretary did not – declined several opportunities this morning to dispute one particular part of that report which is the idea that he called the President a moron. And I want to know whether you are comfortable with the fact that the widespread perception is that he did not dispute that part of the report because it’s true.

MS NAUERT: Well, let me – let me clarify that. The Secretary does not use that type of language. That Secretary did not use that type of language to speak about the President of the United States. He does not use that language to speak about anyone. So I hope that that clarifies it.

QUESTION: So he never said that?

MS NAUERT: He did not say that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: In addition to that and the notion that he did not – or the fact is you’re laying it out that he did not consider resigning, are there other specific facts in that report that you are disputing?

MS NAUERT: Look, I – the Secretary spoke that – to that today. I’m going to give you some of the high-level right now, which is what I think I’ve done, and I’m not going to have a lot for you beyond that.

QUESTION: Did the President – did the Secretary speak – has he spoken to Ambassador Haley about this?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware if he’s spoken with Ambassador Haley. The Secretary, after finishing up here, spent some time over at the White House and then went up to Walter Reed, which I believe he’s on his way back from now for a speech later today.

QUESTION: Can I --

MS NAUERT: Okay, hold on.

QUESTION: How do you know he didn’t use that language?

MS NAUERT: Because I take the Secretary at his word. I spoke with the Secretary about that. The Secretary doesn’t speak that way. I know he holds a very high standard when it comes to how people behave, how people speak. The Secretary is a man who frequently talks about integrity.

QUESTION: So he --

MS NAUERT: Integrity is something that is important to him. I take him at his word. And when he tells me, Heather, he did not use that, I believe him.

QUESTION: So he told you in this conversation --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- he did not say the word “moron” or --

MS NAUERT: The Secretary told me that he does not use that language. Yes.

QUESTION: Do you know, then, why, when he was asked about it at least twice, do you know why he chose not to say, “I just didn’t say that”?

MS NAUERT: Look, I think I’m speaking on behalf of the Secretary right now. The Secretary had an extremely busy morning. The Secretary provided his comments to all of you. He’s not someone who’s ever going to love being in front of the television cameras. He is not a politician. He isn’t. And some people just don’t seem to get that just yet. I’m okay with that. I’m okay standing behind a man, working for a man who wants to keep his nose to the grindstone, wants to promote U.S. foreign policy goals, and cares first and foremost about that and less about television cameras.

QUESTION: Can I talk --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Elise.

QUESTION: Can I just ask you a couple questions about that particular angle?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: You made reference several times to television cameras and the media.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Are you suggesting that – I mean, are you suggesting that the media is making this up or that --

MS NAUERT: No.

QUESTION: Because when you speak about people --

MS NAUERT: Elise, what I’m talking about is I’m trying to convey a sense of who this person is, okay? He came here to do a job. He loves this country. To let you all know just what he said today and to amplify that, that he is staying here. He intends to do so. But a lot of folks just don’t seem to understand why he’s not out there more. So I just wanted to make that clear. That’s it.

QUESTION: Okay. Do you think that – I mean, when you say that he’s not resigning and there are people that are wanting him to kind of bring it, are you acknowledging --

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not challenging that, okay?

QUESTION: No, but what I’m saying is --

MS NAUERT: But look --

QUESTION: I’m saying it’s not – he’s not going to be deterred by that. Do you think that there are some in this administration that kind of have it out for him and are leaking these type of reports to --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to speak to that. I’m not aware of that. I’m here to do a job; he’s there to do a job.

QUESTION: Do --

MS NAUERT: He’s – one of the things he talked about today is not sowing dissension, and there are people who will try to find fissures, splits in an administration, in policy, and all of that.

QUESTION: Well, you’re --

MS NAUERT: I’m just not going to contribute to that.

QUESTION: But back to the media angle, you’re saying that people are trying to find them. What about the people in the administration that are trying to sow them, as you said that he – he said he doesn’t want to do it. But I mean I don’t think it’s the media that’s sowing it. I think it’s people that are leaking it to the media that are trying to sow it.

MS NAUERT: Okay. If somebody is – if somebody is --

QUESTION: I mean, isn’t there a difference?

MS NAUERT: If someone is doing that, I’m not aware of it. I don’t have names or numbers or information from people who are trying to do that, okay?

QUESTION: Just one more. You talk about him, like, not being interested in the television cameras and everything, and we understand --

MS NAUERT: I didn’t say interested. Not being somebody who loves to do that kind of thing.

QUESTION: I understand he doesn’t love to do it, but, I mean, there has been some – and this is not necessarily – you’re bringing it up, so that’s why I’m bringing it up. I don’t necessarily think it’s germane to the story, but you brought it up. That being the top American diplomat is the face of America and is the face and voice of American foreign policy, wouldn’t you --

MS NAUERT: And you heard him and saw him today. You heard him, and heard him speak, to that today. He’s done that recently. He speaks to the press a fair amount. I’m just trying to explain to you that he’s not the kind of person who’s going to just show up in front of every television camera. Some have done that in the past. The Secretary doesn’t find that necessarily to be effective.

Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: But because --

QUESTION: To follow up on this, on this point.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Isn’t it crucial for the Secretary of State of the United States of America, with all the foreign policy issues and the (inaudible) to be out there more frequently --

MS NAUERT: He was out there speaking to those things today and he was asked about the JCPOA, he was asked about our relationship with Pakistan and the meeting that he had --

QUESTION: All very briefly.

MS NAUERT: -- with the Pakistani foreign minister. So he does that. I’m just trying to explain to you the man who’s not craving to be in the spotlight, who’s not a politician, and that’s it. I’ll leave it at that.

Conor, go ahead.

QUESTION: But because he’s not the kind of person who does seek the spotlight and have remarks like this often, the fact that he escalated this story and had remarks about it – why make the decision to so publicly come out and say – and refute the report?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think the Secretary saw it and was concerned, and said to himself, I need to get out there and I need to set the story – set the record straight. And he did that. He’s a forthright person who will say what he thinks and speak his mind. He speaks directly and clearly, and he did that this morning.

QUESTION: But I have to go back, Heather, to the idea that, like, if he’s saying that he didn’t say that, and then he’s saying that he never was planning on resigning and never had a conversation with Mike Pence about resigning, and all the things that he said he didn’t or through you is saying that he didn’t say, then I have to go back to the idea that there are some – I mean, clearly there are people that are saying that he did. And, like, what’s going on here in terms of why are people trying to paint a picture of him that you’re saying doesn’t exist?

MS NAUERT: Let’s see. I’m not going to speculate about why people may be saying certain things. These are unnamed sources in Washington. Elise, you know the drill; you know the game. So I can’t comment on some of the things that some people are saying or ascribe any motivations to some things that some anonymous person may or may not be saying. Okay?

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: Did he apologize to the President for anything that either he or his staff might have done?

MS NAUERT: So they had a good conversation. The Secretary did not offer an apology; one was not needed. It was a good conversation. Okay?

QUESTION: But amid the claims of fake news coming from the President, your denial about the language that was used, Tillerson’s denial about another part of the story, Tillerson’s own spokesperson came out and walked back information that he had given to that story that apparently wasn’t accurate. And he said that he spoke out of line about conversations that he was not privy to. So that seems to me that he contributed inaccurate information to that story. On another occasion he denied conversations had happened between the State Department and the White House that multiple sources told us did happen, including a White House source. So how can we believe what the State Department says did or did not happen when Tillerson’s own spokesperson seems to be putting information out there that is not necessarily accurate?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I understand your question. Honesty, being forthright, integrity is something that the Secretary has spoken to often. That is a value that he holds very close and very dear. What I can tell you about my colleague’s comments in certain media reports today, the Vice President’s office addressed that. And let me read to you a bit about what the Vice President’s office issued.

“The Vice President can confirm that…the Secretary of State made clear, at no time did he and the Secretary ever discuss the prospect of the Secretary’s resignation from the administration. Any reporting to the contrary is categorically false. In addition, any statements that the Vice President questioned Ambassador Nikki Haley’s value to the Trump administration is also categorically false.” Let me finish. “The Vice President has also known Ambassador Nikki Haley for many years, holds her in the highest regard, and appreciates her strong service to this administration at the United Nations.”

My colleague issued some tweets in response to that. I think I certainly share his sentiment in that he regrets those. His statement say that he spoke out of line about conversations he wasn’t privy to.

QUESTION: But if he’s giving information to a reporter that is categorically false on what seems to be now two occasions, how does the Secretary feel about his own spokesperson?

MS NAUERT: I have not asked the Secretary that question.

QUESTION: Okay, thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: Heather, just quickly on the relationship with Vice President Pence. It was also reported in this story that the Vice President counseled the Secretary on how to ease tensions with the administration. Is that true?

MS NAUERT: No. It is not true. The Vice President and Secretary Tillerson have a good working relationship. I would call it a close relationship. That conversation has not happened. I’ve been in touch with the Vice President’s staff and also spoken to the Secretary about that. That did not occur. Okay?

QUESTION: One more question.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Aside from anonymous sources, Senator Bob Corker on the Hill just moments ago said that Secretary Tillerson is “not being supported in a way that I hope a Secretary of State would be supported” by the rest of the administration.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I’m not – I’m not aware of who he is referring to, Senator Corker. I’ve not seen that myself, but wouldn’t comment on it anyway, because I don’t know exactly what he was referring to.

QUESTION: And that’s not a sentiment that the Secretary shares?

MS NAUERT: Look, the Secretary was on the phone with the President just a short while ago. The Secretary regularly has phone calls with Senator Corker, with other Hill leaders, with Speaker Paul Ryan; is in constant communication with Secretary Mattis, with the chief of staff, General Kelly, and others. He has a close working relationship with this administration, and as the fourth person in line to the President, who spends a lot of time traveling and an awful lot of time on the phone with overseas leaders, he is committed to doing this job and I think he’s receiving the support that he hopes to and have – and does have.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Certainly.

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: No, hold on.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Heather, clearly --

MS NAUERT: One last question on this, then let’s move on, because I’m not going to have anything more for you on this. Hi, Carol.

QUESTION: Clearly a lot of these stories are being --

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Clearly a lot of these stories are coming from the White House, and I wondered if you could talk at all about how concerned the Secretary is that some of these reports are coming from people who ostensibly are on the same side --

QUESTION: -- and – who are on the same side as he is and that he’s being stabbed in the back by people in the same administration he’s a part of.

MS NAUERT: I think the Secretary spoke to just sort of the idea of strife in Washington today. So I’m not going to accept your premise, but he spoke about that in general, just sort of the Washington way of doing business. And one of the things he said and one of the things I really appreciate about him as a man and as a leader of this department is that he doesn’t sow dissension. He’s not going to sow dissension. He doesn’t do that. He is here in Washington to do his job, and that is to lead foreign policy. That is to promote the interests of America, the interests of this administration, and to keep Americans safe. He’s not going to get involved in that kind of political tit for tat. That’s not who he is as a person; that’s not what he’s here to do. Okay? Let’s move on to some of the issues now.

QUESTION: Can we go to Pakistan?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Sure. Yeah, Said, let’s talk about that.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Heather. A couple of quick questions: According to the Israeli press, President Trump told the secretary-general, Guterres, on the sidelines of the --

MS NAUERT: At the United Nations? Okay.

QUESTION: -- on UNGA that Mr. Netanyahu is being more difficult and – to get the peace process going. Do you agree with that assessment, that Mr. Netanyahu is obfuscating or nullifying any effort to go – to move forward --

MS NAUERT: Well, I can tell you this, that that is one of the President’s --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- top foreign policy goals. That’s exactly why he put Mr. Greenblatt and also his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, in part, at the top of our goals to try to bring Middle East peace that has failed so many previous administrations.

QUESTION: Right, so --

MS NAUERT: The – excuse me, the President had very productive conversations with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and also with Mr. Abbas up in New York.

QUESTION: Right, but he --

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of those comments. I’ve not seen them myself, just what you’re telling me.

QUESTION: Do you agree with that assessment?

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Do you agree with that assessment that Mr. Netanyahu’s being difficult to get things going?

MS NAUERT: I have not heard that.

QUESTION: I have just a couple more questions, if you bear with me. Also on the Palestinian reconciliation, I know that you issued a statement the other day and you said that you want all to renounce violence and things like this and recognize each other, but the Palestinians have recognized the state of Israel time and time and time again. In fact, during negotiations that were sponsored by the United States in Oslo and other places and so on, they have recognized the state of Israel. Conversely, Israel has not. So what is it that you want?

MS NAUERT: Okay, I think a few more things probably need to be done on that Said, so let me just make our position on this matter very clear in terms of possible reconciliation between the two. We would certainly welcome efforts to create the conditions for the Palestinian Authority to assume its responsibilities in Gaza. Any Palestinian government must unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence, the recognition of the state of Israel, the acceptance of previous agreements and obligations between the parties, and also commitment to peaceful negotiations. We will continue to watch the developments closely. We hope this will bear fruit.

QUESTION: Okay, just to clear up something that you just said. So the Palestinian Authority has done all this. Now, if Hamas comes in into the new government, do you want them in particular as a group to do all that stuff that you said?

MS NAUERT: I think as a group, all --

QUESTION: As a group or as part of the government.

MS NAUERT: As a group, we – and let me be clear: Our position on Hamas has not changed. The United States has designated Hamas as a foreign terror organization, okay. If there’s some sort of reconciliation down the road, that is something that has to be done – unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence and all the other things that I just mentioned, okay? Thank you.

Hi.

QUESTION: The President had asked for a pause on settlements. Netanyahu’s just announced even more settlements. Your reaction to that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, so President Trump has spoken a lot about the issue of settlements. He’s outlined those views and the possible impact on peace efforts. One of the things that he’s said about that is that unrestrained settlement activity does not increase the prospects for peace, and so that hasn’t changed. Our position on that hasn’t changed. The President is focused on helping the parties forge a historic peace deal. That’s one of the reasons that his representatives at the State Department have been so engaged in that.

QUESTION: But he’s being ignored, so are you prepared to put any consequences behind that request?

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m just going – that’s all I’m going to say about the issue of settlements, okay? The President has made his position clear.

Anything else on Israel today? Okay, let’s move on. Hi, yes.

QUESTION: Yes, hi, Heather, thank you so much.

MS NAUERT: Nice to see you.

QUESTION: You mentioned that it’s a result-oriented relations between U.S. and China, and then you mentioned a talk. Should we expect any specific agreement on fugitive repatriation?

MS NAUERT: The last part --

QUESTION: Fugitive.

MS NAUERT: -- can we expect an agreement on what?

QUESTION: The fugitive repatriation.

MS NAUERT: Ah. So I think what you’re starting to refer to are the talks taking place here at the State Department today. The Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security are really spearheading those talks, so for specific questions about what comes out of it I’d have to refer you to them, even though our Deputy Secretary John Sullivan is a part of it, but it’s really being spearheaded out of that.

In terms of the individual you were asking me about – bear with me, I’m just going to have to look up – look that up and get back to you on that, okay?

QUESTION: Can you put it on-camera?

MS NAUERT: I – yeah, I will see what I can do. Yes. Thank you. Okay, anything else on China?

QUESTION: And the separate – you mentioned that it’s a frank discussion. Is there any disagreement between Washington and Beijing on which fugitive should be returned?

MS NAUERT: Let me get back to you on that. Okay? Thank you.

QUESTION: Cuba?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: Oh.

QUESTION: So after we had our briefing yesterday or maybe even during it, the Cuban foreign minister delivered a lengthy – well, let’s go back for a second.

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: You in your briefing yesterday said that the U.S. holds Cuba responsible to protect diplomats under – on its soil under the Vienna conventions --

MS NAUERT: Right.

QUESTION: -- although the U.S. has not laid out any specific steps that you feel Cuba has put – could, but has not taken to do that. Foreign Minister Rodriguez in his appearance in Havana laid out some very specific things that Cuba has asked for that would help it do exactly what you have asked them to do, namely put a stop to this, such as immediate notification when there is an attack so they can go look for whoever’s done it, access to the victims and their doctors so they can figure out what the symptoms are, and technical data about what weapon might have been involved so they know what weapon to look for, and that none of those have really been given to them. So I’m wondering if the U.S. is going to keep Cuba in the dark about the investigation, how would you expect them to solve it?

MS NAUERT: Well, first and foremost, when we are engaged in an investigation, we, as Americans, need to keep a tight hold on a lot of information. We don’t want that information to leak. You all know about leaks. That information could potentially leak to other parties who are involved – who may or may not be involved. Okay? So providing information on the investigation could tip off what I’ll just call the bad guys who are responsible for this. We don’t know who or what is responsible. So one, we wouldn’t want to tip off the bad guys to any information that we have on the investigation. Again, I’m not calling the Cubans – saying that about the Cubans in general, but we wouldn’t want this type of information to leak.

Secondly, the investigation is ongoing. The investigation has not yet been resolved, so there is limited information that we can provide at this point.

QUESTION: But – but how do you respond to their claim that you’re asking them to solve this crime and prevent it while tying one hand behind their back?

MS NAUERT: We are not asking them to solve this crime. We are down there with our investigators who are looking into this as well. If the Cubans have information that they would like to provide us, we would certainly welcome it.

QUESTION: Who’s leading the investigation --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- the State Department or other agencies?

MS NAUERT: Well, we talked about this before.

QUESTION: Right. Yeah.

MS NAUERT: The FBI is leading the investigation; we have our diplomatic security corps and they’re involved as well. Beyond that, I don’t know. Okay?

Anything else on Cuba? All right. Let’s move on. Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: One on Pakistan. Do you know what was discussed during Secretary’s meeting with the Pakistani foreign minister?

MS NAUERT: Bear with me one second because I think I have a little bit for you on that. Okay. The Secretary met with the foreign minister – the minister of foreign affairs in Washington. They talked about the importance of partnering together to establish peace and prosperity in the region. They talked about their mutual commitment to advancing a multifaceted relationship between the United States and Pakistan based on our shared interest in a secure, prosperous, and democratic Pakistan. The foreign minister and the Secretary talked about the President’s South Asia strategy and what – that was announced back in August. They also exchanged ideas about how our countries can work together to help stabilize Afghanistan.

QUESTION: And in response to a question at this stakeout earlier --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: He said he expressed concern about the future of Government of Pakistan. What did he mean by that?

MS NAUERT: I’m not – I’m --

QUESTION: Why he’s concerned about --

MS NAUERT: That was not a question I had a chance to ask him. Okay. I’m not aware. Okay?

QUESTION: I have one question on India. Can I ask?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anyone else have anything on Pakistan?

QUESTION: Pakistan, please.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: So when the new strategy on Afghanistan was unveiled, the language regarding U.S.-Pakistani relations and the future of U.S.-Pakistani relations was much harsher than what we just heard. We were hearing comments from senior administration officials about how Pakistan is going to have to start getting tougher on the arrests and pursuit of extremists and the Taliban, there is a possibility of further cuts in aid, there was discussions about the possibility that Pakistani officials with ties to known extremists could be put on – could be sanctioned. Was none of that discussed with the Pakistani foreign minister?

MS NAUERT: We typically don’t provide the fulsome types of readouts, we don’t do a play-by-play, a blow-by-blow of everything that happens in our private diplomatic conversations. What I just read to you, that’s what I can provide to you from the meeting. I know our conversations with the Pakistani Government continue to be frank.

Okay. Let’s move on from Pakistan.

QUESTION: On India?

MS NAUERT: Okay. India.

QUESTION: The first shipment of U.S. oil arrived in India day before yesterday. What does it mean for India-U.S. relationship? And do you think this will help in balance of trade between the two countries?

MS NAUERT: So yesterday – actually, November – October the 2nd – sorry, I’m off by a month.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: October the 2nd was the first of a series of new shipments of crude oil from the United States. It arrived in the Indian state of Oshida earlier this week. We consider the increased Indian purchases of U.S. crude oil to be a direct outcome of the June visit of the prime minister, Modi, to the White House. The leaders at that point talked about expanding and elevating our bilateral energy cooperation through a Strategic Energy Partnership. And so we look at that – at that event as marking a significant milestone in the growing partnership between the United States and India. And by the way, I’m looking forward to visiting India next month. So, yeah.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you. What are the dates?

MS NAUERT: I’ll let you know about that trip. Okay. Let’s move on to something else.

QUESTION: Heather, on to Spain?

MS NAUERT: Hi, Rich. Yeah.

QUESTION: Has the Secretary spoken with any counterparts in Spain? And does the U.S. agree with the Spanish Government on the legality of the referendum in that country?

MS NAUERT: So we spoke about this yesterday, so I really don’t have much new to provide you and I don’t have any phone conversations to read out for you or any meetings with the Spanish Government at this time. I think the President made it clear, and we’ve long said this, that we support a strong, united – a strong and united Spain. We support the right to free assembly. That is consistent with Spanish law. There were, of course, many reports about people who were injured. That saddens us as Americans and as a U.S. Government. We encourage all the parties to resolve their political differences consistent with Spanish law, and I think that’s the thing to underscore: consistent with Spanish law. We saw that as not being consistent with Spanish law. That concerned us.

Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather, can we move on? Today, the King of Saudi Arabia went to Moscow, and at the same time, the president of Turkey went to Tehran, to Iran. Both are U.S. allies, strong U.S. allies. Do you feel that U.S. allies are sort of moving away from the United States of America and going elsewhere, maybe forming new alliances?

MS NAUERT: Last time I checked, foreign ministers and leaders from other parts of the world are allowed to get on airplanes and go meet with their counterparts in other countries. It’s called diplomacy. We do a lot of that, they do a lot of that. I don’t see our relationships with any of the major countries changing.

QUESTION: Are you concerned that such a solid ally such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, that the monarch goes to Moscow – that does not concern you? Or when you see the Turkish president going to Tehran and forming new alliances --

MS NAUERT: I think it’s --

QUESTION: -- perhaps regional?

MS NAUERT: Again, I think it’s called diplomacy. That’s all I have to say about that. Okay?

Hi, Jessica. How are you?

QUESTION: Heather, thanks. Can we go to North Korea for a moment?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: So – and this kind of goes back to what the Secretary said about the three lines of communication between Pyongyang and Washington. The White House weighed in on that earlier this week saying they were just to basically get detained Americans back into the country. I just want to have you clarify from – again, from the State Department perspective, what are those lines of communication for? Are they to allow the Secretary and any diplomats on the American side to probe Pyongyang for their readiness to come back to the negotiating table?

MS NAUERT: So we covered this extensively yesterday at our press briefing, so what I’m going to say to you today is not – is not very different from what I said yesterday.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: We have the ability to make contact with North Korea about the issues of Americans who are being held there. We did that when it came to trying to bring Otto Warmbier home. We have a relationship with Sweden, our protecting power in Pyongyang, because we do not have a diplomatic relationship with that country and with that government. So we rely upon them for information on Americans who are being held in that country.

Channels that exist are used for communication on occasion when it comes to the safety and security of Americans who are being held. In terms of talks with North Korea, that is not – we are not at a place where we are willing to talk with them or where they have shown an interest in speaking with us. When they continue to launch ballistic missiles, when they continue to do nuclear testing, they are not indicating to the United States or frankly any other country in the world that they are interested in engaging in serious conversations or any kind of dialogue. Okay? So that --

QUESTION: Can I just follow on the cyber dialogue? I know you said you’re expecting outcomes to come out of DHS and DOJ. Do you think that you will be able to report any progress?

MS NAUERT: Sort of a hypothetical. I don’t want to get ahead of all of that because it’s still – my understanding is it’s still going on.

QUESTION: My understanding was it ended at 2:00, so I wasn’t sure --

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: My understanding was it ended at 2:00, so that’s why I asked --

MS NAUERT: Okay. I was actually busy with some other things --

QUESTION: I bet you were.

MS NAUERT: -- just before 2:00, so my focus wasn’t on the – that dialogue.

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay? All right. Guys, we’re going to have to wrap it up in just a few minutes. Any last questions?

QUESTION: Yeah. You said that you were looking forward to going to India and visiting India next month.

MS NAUERT: I am.

QUESTION: Did you suggest that Secretary Tillerson will be traveling to India next month?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of whether or not he’s traveling on that. I just know I’m going.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: That’s all I got.

QUESTION: Well, good for you.

MS NAUERT: That’s all I got.

QUESTION: Very nice.

MS NAUERT: And by the way, I found your notes about the – Guo Wengui, right? That’s who you were asking about earlier? Okay. Not very exciting for you, but Justice and Homeland Security have the lead on that one.

QUESTION: But it did come up in the discussion?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know if it came up in the discussion, but I just know that they would have to provide with the information on that.

QUESTION: Given the fact that you mentioned his name, did it – is that an indication that it did come up in the discussion?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. Listen, what I put together in this big, fat briefing book is information from all over the world. Things that often you all never ask about are in this book, and so we have a lot of backup things just in case it’s needed. Okay? All right --

QUESTION: I do have one last question on Syria.

MS NAUERT: All right, Said. What is it? Yes.

QUESTION: On Syria. Yes. Now, it seems that the government forces are asserting their authority over much of Syria now and creating new realities as far as --

MS NAUERT: Creating what?

QUESTION: Creating like a new reality on the ground, a new status quo on the ground where maybe – will you be involved in it? Put it this way: Are you going to be involved in any kind of peace process between the combatants and Syria – the government on the one hand and the opposition on the other --

MS NAUERT: Well --

QUESTION: -- as much as the envoy of the UN?

MS NAUERT: Our position on this hasn’t changed. Down the road – and we really look forward to this, and this is something that the Secretary spoke about at length in – at the United Nations and the like-minded nations regarding talks about Syria, and also in the D-ISIS coalition meetings. We continue to support a UN-led process that would eventually be a political process where Syrians can form their own government, but this is way down the road. We hope to get to that point. We look forward to getting to that point hopefully, but there’s a lot of work that has to be done between now and then. There are teams on the ground who miraculously are involved in de-mining, aid getting in to some of the various places where aid was not able to go in. In some places some Syrians are actually starting to come home because some places have started – I want to be cautious about this – to become more safe. We certainly wouldn’t encourage anybody to return home before it was safe, but the good news is that is starting to happen in certain pockets. There’s the ceasefire that was brokered by the United States, Jordan, and also the Russians. That is still holding. That’s been holding since about the fourth of July or so, so – maybe it’s been August 1st. I’ll have to double check that, but it’s been about two months --

QUESTION: So --

MS NAUERT: So we’re seeing incremental progress there, but I want to caution it’s not going to be overnight. It certainly isn’t. We have a long way to go. The United States backed by the D-ISIS coalition is still focused on fighting ISIS; that’s why we’re there. That’s exactly what we’re doing. It’s going to continue to be a long battle, but we’re seeing progress. All right?

QUESTION: It’s an accepting of the fact that Assad is not going anywhere any time soon.

MS NAUERT: We’re still fighting ISIS. We’re still fighting ISIS and we’re going to fight ISIS until ISIS is dead. Thanks, everybody. Great to see you today.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather.

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

Odisha

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 - August 24, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





August 24, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

AFGHANISTAN



QATAR/IRAN



QATAR/ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS/UNITED NATIONS



NORTH KOREA/SYRIA/UNITED NATIONS



NORTH KOREA/EGYPT



NORTH KOREA/RUSSIA/CHINA



REPUBLIC OF KOREA



NORTH KOREA



CUBA



TURKEY



CAMBODIA



DEPARTMENT/RUSSIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:25 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Air conditioning still not fixed?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Love it. Thank you. It’s great.

MS NAUERT: Goodness. Do we have an electrician in the house? I was told it’s a motherboard issue, and I haven’t heard the word motherboard since, I don’t know, maybe 1992 or something.

QUESTION: It was so cold we couldn’t even sit in here.

MS NAUERT: Andrea, come on. You know the lights. They get hot. How is everybody?

QUESTION: Great.

MS NAUERT: We’re doing all right? Matt, I understand you are eager to get out of here.

QUESTION: I am.

MS NAUERT: So enjoy your vacation. We will miss you.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Starting out today, I want to start out in Afghanistan and talk a little bit about an announcement, an important announcement, that came out of Afghanistan from the government there today. President Ghani launched the Afghan Government’s new compact. It’s called the Afghan Compact. The compact represents the Afghan Government’s commitment to key reforms aimed at improving security and creating a more peaceful, stable, and prosperous society.

We have long stressed and supported the Afghan Government’s efforts to fight corruption and improve its governance, and the compact is an important new step in that effort. The implementation of the new commitments, which include benchmarks in four key areas – governance, security, peace and reconciliation, and economics – they carry with them the opportunities to improve the delivery of government services, stem official corruption, and prepare for secure national elections in 2018. The benchmarks are tied to global standards of good governance put forward by the World Bank and other leading institutions.

The development of the compact and its ultimate implementation was an important consideration in the development of the administration’s new South Asia strategy. Chief Executive Abdullah highlighted the fact earlier this week, when he said that nation building is a job for the Afghans themselves to do and not the United States or other countries. So we congratulate Afghanistan on that and look forward to any way that we can assist them.

Today’s announcement demonstrates Afghans’ renewed commitment to taking up its share of the burden. As President Trump has said, the United States remains committed to supporting Afghanistan, as long as they continue to make real reforms, show real progress, and produce real results.

And I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: That’s it?

MS NAUERT: That is it.

QUESTION: All right.

MS NAUERT: Where do you want to start?

QUESTION: I have – I don’t have a lot, but I have two very brief follow-ups, but I’ll wait until the end to ask those. So the only other thing I have is: Do you guys have any thoughts on the – what appears to be a bolstering of relations between Qatar and Iran, with Qatar sending an ambassador back to Iran? This is not the direction that the other – that the Arab neighbors wanted to see Qatar move in. So do you guys have anything to say?

MS NAUERT: So let me first just mention something about the overall Qatar dispute, and that is something that we continue to keep a very close eye on. As you know, our Deputy Assistant Secretary Tim Lenderking was recently over there, working on that issue, along with General Zinni. We remain very deeply concerned with the status of that dispute. It’s been now – how many weeks? – 12 weeks or so – let me double check the facts on that. But it’s --

QUESTION: Since June 5.

MS NAUERT: Since when?

QUESTION: June 5.

MS NAUERT: June the 5th. It’s gone on for far too long. It really has. So we remain deeply concerned with the status of that. In terms of your question, Matt, about restoring diplomatic ties with Iran and Qatar doing that, we would just basically say that we encourage the parties to try to minimize the rhetoric. I know this – you’re going to want more of answer on this for you on this particular matter. The Governments of Qatar and Iran are the best ones to answer those questions. Just want to say overall, we just remain very concerned about the dispute.

QUESTION: Well, I understand that. But I mean, you guys have been involved, albeit maybe not enthusiastically, but you were forced to get involved because they weren’t making any progress on their own. And I – so I don’t think it’s out of the – I don’t think it’s inappropriate to ask what – if the United States thinks that Qatar and Iran restoring diplomatic relations is a good thing for the dispute resolution process or not.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, completely fair question. There are diplomatic things that may be going on that we’re simply not aware of or can’t speak about right now. So I know it’s not a very satisfactory answer. You’re more than welcome to ask me about it as much as you like. I just want to go back to just say we’re concerned about the status of the dispute.

QUESTION: Right. I get it. But does this make it worse?

MS NAUERT: And we’ll continue to have conversations with the Government of Qatar.

QUESTION: Do you not have an opinion?

MS NAUERT: Is the dispute – do we regard the dispute as worse?

QUESTION: No. Is the restoration of diplomatic ties helpful to resolving the dispute? Does it hurt?

MS NAUERT: I just don’t --

QUESTION: Is it something you don’t have an opinion on?

MS NAUERT: I’m not – I’m just not going to characterize it, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing. But overall, we remain very concerned about the status of this dispute and we’re making those messages clear.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Could you clarify something with Zinni?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is his involvement was just that one mission or is he an envoy, like an ongoing process?

MS NAUERT: I’m not certain if he has a particular role or title. Let me double check on that for you. My understanding is that the general was brought on with his broad range of expertise in his previous career in the military as assisting with the Qatar dispute.

Okay? All right. Let’s move on.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

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

MS NAUERT: Yeah, go right ahead. I understand --

QUESTION: One follow-up on Qatar?

MS NAUERT: Yes. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi. In terms of the White House delegation that traveled to the region this week, they were in Qatar on Monday. And it seemed like that was a portfolio that the Secretary was taking care of and owning the dispute. So what’s the benefit of sending the White House delegation there to follow up? And did Tillerson speak with them before they went on the trip?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So we remain in very close contact with the White House, with Mr. Kushner’s office, Mr. Greenblatt’s office, and so forth. All of these meetings our embassy is involved with. We’re involved in the facilitation of the meetings, attending a lot of the meetings, debriefing following the meetings. I can give you somewhat of a readout from that meeting that you just asked about.

On August 22nd, 2017, Senior Adviser to the President Jared Kushner, Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategy Dina Powell, and Deputy Assistant Secretary for State for Arabian Gulf Affairs Tim Lenderking met with Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani of Qatar and his senior advisers to talk about advancing President Trump’s goal of a genuine and lasting peace among the Israelis and the Palestinians. The parties discussed the importance to the peace effort of countering terrorists and extremists, improving humanitarian situation in Gaza. The two sides affirmed the close relationship between the United States and Qatar and committed to strengthening the relationship and close cooperation.

So I think that was really the limit of their conversations.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary have conversations with them before they went over there?

MS NAUERT: I’m not certain if the Secretary himself actually spoke with – you mean with Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt?

QUESTION: Kushner and Greenblatt.

MS NAUERT: I’m not certain of that. But I know our staffs talk regularly, and we talk with them as well as the NSC, and they communicate with us very well.

Okay? All right. Anything else on Qatar? Okay. Said, why don’t you go ahead?

QUESTION: Yeah. I want to go to --

MS NAUERT: What do you want to talk about?

QUESTION: -- the Palestinian-Israeli issue.

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: I want to go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue, if I may.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you about an issue that the United States is pressuring the United Nations, I guess, Human Rights Council to – or not to publish the list of American companies that are doing business in Israeli settlements. Can you confirm that? Or what reason would you have to pressure the United Nations to delist or not to publish the list of these companies?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think we take issue with the list itself, and we’ve been very clear about that. The United States is adamantly opposed to this so-called black list and this resolution. We have been from the very beginning. We fought against this in Geneva. That’s where it was originally proposed. We consider these types of resolutions to be counterproductive, and they really do nothing to advance peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

QUESTION: And certainly you don’t want to encourage the settlements to have their own semi-independent kind of economy and trade and all these things.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, say that again?

QUESTION: Well, the target of this list is to show the companies that are doing business with settlements that you and the rest of the world consider to be illegal.

MS NAUERT: Look, I think overall we just view that type of black list as counterproductive. Does that help facilitate peace? I don’t think so. I don’t think so.

QUESTION: Well, but --

MS NAUERT: And the United States, I think, has been pretty clear about that.

QUESTION: -- but neither are the proliferation of settlements and their economy. Does it help peace?

MS NAUERT: We don’t think that that kind of list is productive, period.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I get you to comment on one last --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- on a last issue. The – a report shows that there are 35 – 3,400 – 3,455 Israeli structures in the West Bank on privately owned Palestinian land, which you opposed. And in the past, there were condemnation of these efforts. Thus far, since this administration came into office, there have been no condemnations of such building of settlements on privately owned Palestinian land. So I wanted to ask your position on this.

MS NAUERT: I think in terms of building on lands, it gets back to – the administration is committed to doing what it can to try to advance peace. The President, as well as others in the administration, have said repeatedly – and I feel like I get this question every single day from you – that unrestrained settlement activity does not advance the cause for peace. I’ll leave it at that. Okay? Let’s move on to something else.

Andrea, hi.

QUESTION: Related subject in terms of the Greenblatt-Kushner trip. In the meetings with Netanyahu, was it the decision of the embassy to defer to Israel’s decision to have only government cameras there? An embassy camera shot their statements as well as state – Israeli – as far as I know, there were no reporters there.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, you know what? I’m afraid I don’t have anything for you on that. I have not asked that --

QUESTION: Could you take that question as to the policy of our embassy in coverage?

MS NAUERT: So the question is: What is the policy of the U.S. embassy --

QUESTION: When Kushner is traveling --

MS NAUERT: Uh-huh.

QUESTION: -- and there is a photo op, which there was, and he made a statement, which he did.

MS NAUERT: Okay, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: And so did the prime minister. What is the policy now? To only have so-called “fake news” by the government cameras cover that rather than journalists?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. Whose cameras covered this?

QUESTION: A camera – I am told a camera from the embassy, from the American embassy, and a camera from the Israeli Government --

MS NAUERT: So an official – an official photographer?

QUESTION: Right. Shooting statements that made it look like they were press statements. I will – I was not there, so I’m taking this off of reports I’ve seen.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m not aware of this report. I can’t confirm that that took place, but I can certainly look into that for you.

QUESTION: I’d like to know what the U.S. embassy’s policy is.

MS NAUERT: I will look into that. I will look into that for you.

QUESTION: When Kushner is traveling and making statements.

MS NAUERT: Yep, I’ll look into that for you, certainly. Okay. Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi. My question --

MS NAUERT: What do you want to talk about? Iraq?

QUESTION: Actually, no. Syria.

MS NAUERT: All right.

QUESTION: The UN reported earlier this month that two shipments had been intercepted in the past half year from North Korea to a Syrian Government agency responsible for chemical weapons production. Can you provide more details on those shipments, and do you think that, then, are your efforts to isolate North Korea and prevent Syria from manufacturing, using – and using chemical weapons effective, or do you think there are problems with it?

MS NAUERT: So a couple things on this. This is a confidential report. This was put together by the UN. It is – hold on a second. I have some more information on this. I’m looking in the wrong place. Give me a second for you. Here we go, okay.

So that report, my understanding is that it will be released eventually by the United Nations. So USUN will have to provide all the specifics on that report, but as a general matter I can say overall that we would applaud the work of this particular committee and its work to try to hold North Korea responsible or accountable.

We continue – and we talk about this a lot – to encourage member-states to provide that committee with information on the DPRK’s attempts to circumvent UN sanctions. So there are the sanctions against the DPRK. If, in fact, this is true, what is being – what is being reported, that would be a very grave, gave concern to us.

QUESTION: And to follow up on that, The Washington Post has a big article which you doubtless saw saying that the real motivation, energizing motive for this dispute with Egypt over financial aid, was really Egypt’s dealings with North Korea. Is that true? Is that accurate?

MS NAUERT: So I mean, what I can tell you about that is that we’ve long talked about concerns about democracy, about human rights. We have long listed our concerns about Egypt and the direction that it has been – it has been going in.

As it pertains to DPRK and Egypt, we continue to work with our allies and partners. Egypt is one of them. We have conversations with Egypt and many other countries around the world about the need to isolate the DPRK, and we do that because we recognize that countries around the world that do business with North Korea enable money to go into North Korea’s illegal nuclear and ballistic weapons programs. And that is a huge concern of ours and it’s a huge concern to the international community as well.

We have a deep and multifaceted relationship with the country of Egypt. We have a lot of areas of close cooperation. But DPRK overall as a broad matter is a big concern to the United States. Okay?

QUESTION: On Raqqa, on Syria, if you may --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Hold on, let’s just stick –

QUESTION: Syria.

MS NAUERT: Does anyone else have any questions about Egypt?

QUESTION: DPRK.

QUESTION: DPRK.

MS NAUERT: Okay, let’s then switch over to DPRK. Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: A follow-up. Good. A follow-up on that part. Are you concerned that the recent sanction against Chinese and Russian entities and individuals may harm the progress you have been seeing with those?

MS NAUERT: No, and here’s why: The companies and the individuals who have been sanctioned – the third-party sanctions – are in China and Russia, but we don’t target any specific governments at all with regard to sanctions. We look at those sanctions – and Treasury can talk about this more – but we would regard those sanctions as not being necessarily a part of the government but companies that are involved in illicit activity, companies or individuals who are involved in illicit activity.

Russia and China have pledged to adhere to the sanctions, to adhere to the sanctions against the DPRK, and we trust and look forward that – to them adhering to that. We take them at their word; they said that they would and we don’t have any reason to believe that they wouldn’t now. Okay?

QUESTION: But the Chinese foreign ministry actually came out, object this sanction. I wonder if during the phone call between Secretary Tillerson and Chinese State Councilor Yang Jiechi the Secretary Tillerson explained the motivation behind this sanction.

MS NAUERT: Again, this isn’t to target a government. These are to target entities and individuals who are funding some of DPRK’s programs. Okay?

QUESTION: Last one --

MS NAUERT: And this can happen anywhere around the world where we see people who are involved in those types of things or companies. And we will keep an eye on them and, if appropriate, Treasury will look into it and then sanction them. Okay?

QUESTION: And last one: Could you please explain what’s the precondition now for the United States to start the negotiation with North Korea? Because in March, Secretary Tillerson actually – he said the negotiation could only be achieved if North Korea give up the weapons of mass destruction, but recently he also suggested that Pyongyang only had to demonstrate that it was serious about a path before the talk begin.

MS NAUERT: Look, overall our policy on DPRK has not changed. We want a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. The world wants that. UN Security Council resolutions have backed that up as well. So that has not changed. But the Secretary has looked at this, as one of the countries that cares deeply about this issue, and has said that Kim Jong-un needs to take steps – further steps – in order to show that he is serious before we are willing to sit down. So our policy on that hasn’t changed.

QUESTION: But serious about what? Serious about giving up their weapons program or serious about not advancing it beyond where it is currently? Because he said both things --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, and let me read, let me read a quote from something he recently said: “The U.S. is willing to negotiate with Pyongyang, but given the long record of North Korea’s dishonesty in negotiations and repeated violations of international agreements, it is incumbent upon the regime to signal its desire to negotiate in good faith. A sincere indication would be the immediate cessation of its provocative threats, nuclear tests, missile launches, and other weapons tests.”

Susan Thornton has talked about this – and look, we hope to get to that point with them, but there’s still a long way to go.

All right, anything else on DPRK?

QUESTION: Yeah, one follow-up.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hey, how are you?

QUESTION: Yeah. The sanctions on China and Russia – there are reports that maybe the U.S. Government is still considering expand the range of these sanctions, like to some major banks in China. So I’m just wondering that can you confirm there is a discussion about this --

MS NAUERT: I can’t, because that would be something – I can’t confirm it. It would be something that Treasury would be looking at and considering if that were to be the case, but I’m just not aware of that. Okay?

Hi.

QUESTION: Hi. You mentioned United States is pleased to see North Korea demonstrate some level of restraint, but at the same time, we can see the joint military exercise between U.S. and South Korea. So we know this is like pre – or planned before, but have you ever thinking about if cancel this kind of joint military exercise, that would be beneficial to regional stability?

MS NAUERT: I feel like I keep getting this question again and again and again. These exercises with South Korea, or any of our allies for that matter – these have been done for decades and decades. In particular with South Korea, which is ongoing right now – I suppose that’s why you’re asking me about that – we’ve been doing it since 1953, and this is something that we do for military readiness. It’s something that we do to our ally as – with our ally. As you know, we have a very close relationship with the Republic of Korea.

The – it’s a combined command-and-control event. It’s designed to improve the alliance’s ability to defend the Republic of Korea. We also have 17,500 U.S. servicemembers who are serving and participating in that. There are 3,000 who are involved in this coming from off-peninsula. These are regularly scheduled; it’s an annual exercise that we do all the time. It comes with many months of planning. But to suggest that our activity with our ally of the Republic of Korea is in any way equivalent to the DPRK’s actions is simply false. Okay?

All right. Anything else on DPRK?

QUESTION: Yeah, I have one, just – on DPRK.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi, Dave.

QUESTION: Thank you. The Secretary spoke of a measure of restraint that he wants to acknowledge, and it’s true that there haven’t been any missile tests or nuclear tests since the new round of sanctions. But this week, they did release a round of propaganda photographs showing Kim Jong-un and what were described as missile scientists and commanders, and there was various missile paraphernalia in these photographs and diagrams on the wall.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does that give you cause for concern? Is that provocation even if it didn’t involve an actual firing?

MS NAUERT: And I’m glad that you refer to it as a propaganda photo because that’s simply what it is. We don’t know that the timing – we don’t know the timing which that photo was taken. We don’t know if it’s an old photo or if it’s a recent photo. We don’t know if that photo was taken before the Secretary’s comments or after the Secretary’s comments. Sometimes there’s a lag time between things that are said here and things that get posted in the DPRK.

We consider it overall a good first step that there haven’t been any missile launches or testing for three – three – three-plus weeks or so, but we need to see more.

QUESTION: You need to see more of nothing?

MS NAUERT: We need to see – (laughter) – we need to see them take more action, more – or inaction in that instance.

QUESTION: Okay. But this gets back to the – I remember when I first asked this the other day --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and you made the kind of joke about you were going to reward your kid for not stealing a cookie.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But isn’t that what this is?

MS NAUERT: In what way?

QUESTION: Well, I mean, if you’re willing to talk with them as long as they don’t do something --

MS NAUERT: No, we’re not at that point yet, so I don’t want to get ahead of activities or forecast what’s going to happen in the future or talk about hypotheticals. We need to see more action, more serious action --

QUESTION: So they actually have to do something, just not do nothing?

MS NAUERT: The point is they need to take steps in the right direction. Okay? It’s been three-plus weeks since they haven’t done any missile launches or missile tests. We’re pleased with that and we’d like to see that go on more, but they need to do a lot more.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay? Okay.

QUESTION: During this period, has Ambassador Yun been able to speak to Mr. Pak Yon-kil or any of his colleagues at the North Korean delegation in the UN?

MS NAUERT: I just don’t – I don’t have any conversations, calls, or meetings to provide you right now.

QUESTION: Because there aren’t any or because they’re --

MS NAUERT: I just don’t – I don’t have any.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Just – just one – just one --

MS NAUERT: You know one of the problems with it being hot in here is everybody gets sleepy. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Just one clarification.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Conor, how are you? You want to talk about Cuba? Okay.

QUESTION: Yes, quickly.

QUESTION: Staying on North Korea, just a --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Pardon me one second. I’ll do North Korea and then I’ll move --

QUESTION: Yeah. Just a clarification: How are you confident that China will honor the latest sanctions against North Korea? It hasn’t done in the past. And what about the monitoring of the commercial corridor between those two countries? The coal is going, everything, and – so how are we going to be confident that, yes, this time China is honoring?

MS NAUERT: China – China has talked about how it intends to do that. We have to take some of our partners at their word. The situation – and I think many nations want stability in the Korean Peninsula. Many nations understand the threat that the DPRK faces. Let me read to you just a little bit from Secretary Tillerson when he was in Manila and he was referring exactly to this with regard to the Chinese.

He said, “We had discussions in Manila about the situation.” He’s referring to the Chinese and also the Russians. He said: I know they’re having talks as well with representatives from North Korea. “I think that is evidence that they have very good, open channels of communication to be able to talk to the regime of North Korea, and we hope that they will be encouraging them to stand down their program and abide by UN Security Council resolutions, which both China and Russia have voted for in the past. I’m hopeful that they can use their influence – and I think they do have influence with the regime – to bring them to a point of dialogue, but with the right expectation of what that dialogue will be.”

So there are ways that, certainly, other nations can reach out and communicate their messages to the DPRK.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: So we’re taking China at its word right now. Okay? Conor, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. So yesterday you said that the State Department had brought medical professionals down to the staff in Havana. I’m wondering if you can say whether or not one of those doctors was one of the Americans who has been injured by the activity.

MS NAUERT: I am not aware of that. I am not aware of that at all. This is the first I’m hearing of that.

QUESTION: So it’s exclusively U.S. diplomatic personnel who have been injured and have these symptoms?

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that – again, my understanding is that the people who experience these symptoms were U.S. Government employees who were there working for the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay?

QUESTION: And then just as well, the – I’ve have heard from some senior officials here that Cuba has been responsive to the U.S. request for an investigation. Would you say that the Cubans have been working with the U.S. on the investigation, or is that an over-characterization?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. Responsive, working with – I --

QUESTION: But it’s not a joint investigation with the two --

MS NAUERT: I don’t believe it’s a joint investigation. The U.S. Government is investigating this. We have multiple agencies and departments who are involved in this and take it extremely seriously. We were talking about this yesterday. This is something that we have not experienced in the past. We are working very hard to try to take care of our folks who are there – they’re on official duty – and trying to provide them all the care and the treatment and the support that they would need.

QUESTION: And then just one last question.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’d ask yesterday, but you ran out of time. Can you say whether or not the attacks are ongoing still?

MS NAUERT: I was briefed on this both yesterday and today, and I was told that the incidents are not ongoing at this point. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: I do have some news, which I know some of you will be very interested in hearing about this. I want to mention that I have an update for you on this, on the number of people who have been affected. We have not provided that information in the past. We only now have the confirmation of the number of Americans who have been affected by this. We can confirm that at least 16 U.S. Government employees, members of our embassy community, have experienced some kind of symptoms. They have been provided medical treatment in the United States as well as in Cuba. We take this situation extremely seriously. We are trying to provide them the help, the medical care, the treatment, and the support that they need and the support that they deserve.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: May I follow up on that?

MS NAUERT: I know, I know. We’ll have a lot of questions about this. And I don’t have a ton of information.

QUESTION: But when you --

QUESTION: Well, but when you --

MS NAUERT: I’ll give you what I can.

QUESTION: Do they – does that include spouses at all, who may --

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that all the – you know what --

QUESTION: -- that come under chief of mission authority, but are they all actually --

MS NAUERT: You know what, let me check on that for you, because I just got this information as I was coming out here and I don’t have that in front of me. So let me find out if these were all actually employees or if some of these are family members. Can we check on that while we’re in here and see if we can get you that information before the briefing ends?

Andrea.

QUESTION: When you said that the – that there were no more – that they are no longer experiencing the symptoms, did --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. Did I say no longer experiencing the symptoms? I mean the incidents.

QUESTION: No, no. The incidents.

MS NAUERT: The incidents are no longer occurring.

QUESTION: Does that mean that something was found or something at – in these buildings was intermediated? I mean, how do you know that it’s no longer an issue? Was there some physical --

MS NAUERT: There --

QUESTION: -- object or --

MS NAUERT: To my knowledge --

QUESTION: -- discovery?

MS NAUERT: -- nothing – last I heard, nothing has been identified as here is a piece of equipment, for example.

QUESTION: And can you update us on the report – CBS had a report of brain damage according to a doctor treating at least one employee. I’m not sure whether – about the numbers. Have you anything further --

MS NAUERT: I --

QUESTION: -- to suggest --

MS NAUERT: I can’t confirm.

QUESTION: -- quote, “brain damage?”

MS NAUERT: I can’t confirm any of that. I can’t confirm that CBS report, and we would never give information about the health status of one of the Americans.

QUESTION: And for all the 16 that you mentioned --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- are they all out of country now, or are some still --

MS NAUERT: No, I believe that some of them are still there. Okay.

QUESTION: When you say at least 16, could that number climb?

MS NAUERT: All I have is – and again, this is information that I got just as I was coming out here. At least 16 members – that number could change.

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: Can you say anything on-the-record about what you think happened to them at this point?

MS NAUERT: Well, we’ve talked about this before. I think --

QUESTION: Do you have, like, any new information that you could share on-the-record?

MS NAUERT: No. I don’t. I don’t have anything new for you. What I’ve said in the past, that these incidents started taking place late in 2016, that we know our Americans started experiencing some symptoms, started reporting them in to embassy personnel, we started investigating, and eventually we got to this point. Okay? All right.

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: Sorry if I had missed this, but there are also reports that this – these same victims of attack had also had cars vandalized, homes broken into, pets poisoned. Can you confirm that these same individuals were harassed in different ways?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I don’t have any information on that for you in particular. As a general matter, I know that various governments have seen that kind of behavior from the Cuban Government in the past. But again, we’re not assigning responsibility at this point. We don’t know who the perpetrator was of these incidents. That is why I want to be firm and say, because I’ve seen some misreporting on this, the investigation is ongoing. The investigation is ongoing and we will continue to try to find the source of these incidents and the perpetrator.

QUESTION: Just to button up the answer --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- to Andrea’s question, so if we haven’t found a device and we don’t know who did it, and we’re talking about symptoms that are not, like, “Ow,” no longer ow; we’re talking about things that have – that developed over time, how do we – how do we know that this isn’t ongoing?

MS NAUERT: How do we know that it’s not – because we talk with our staff and we talk with the medical professionals.

QUESTION: And what percentage of the embassy family are 16?

MS NAUERT: Matt asked that question. I said we’ll see if I can get you something on that. I don’t know. These – again, this information was just given to me as I was coming out here, so let me try to see what I can get for you. I may not be able to provide you an answer, but I will do my best to do that.

QUESTION: And the U.S. Government employees, are they all U.S. citizens?

MS NAUERT: Yes. Okay?

QUESTION: Change to Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Hi. How are you, Ilhan? Nice to see you.

QUESTION: Doing fine. Thank you.

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

QUESTION: On --

MS NAUERT: Because I see --

QUESTION: No, no, no. I got my two very brief follow-ups, Heather.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s go to – let’s go to Ilhan, and I know – I see some of you falling asleep in here in the heat. (Laughter.) Taking a little nap in here. It happens to me too.

QUESTION: In Turkey today --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- local court issued another arrest for American pastor Brunson, who has been mentioned by President, Vice President, and recently by the Secretary of State.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: And he is accused of attempting to abolish Turkey – Turkish Parliament, change of constitutional order, and spying accusations. What that means is that it doesn’t seem he’s going to get release any time soon even if the other arrest warrant is perished. Do you have any comment on this recent?

MS NAUERT: Yes. So you’re talking about Pastor Andrew Brunson. That is a case that people here follow very closely. Some of our bureaus – I’ve had numerous conversations with them about his case. Pastor Brunson has not been forgotten. The safety and security of Americans is one of our top priorities here at the State Department. Secretary Tillerson has spoken about this, about Pastor Brunson, who’s now been imprisoned for about 10 months now. He was taken into custody back in October of 2016. The Secretary said this: The United States continues to advocate for the release of Pastor Andrew Brunson. He’s been wrongfully imprisoned in Turkey. We take this issue very seriously. We take our obligation to assist U.S. citizens abroad very seriously. Since Pastor Brunson’s arrest, our consular officers have visited him regularly. They continue to do so. I will see if I can find a date of his last consular visit for you. I do not have that, though, at my fingertips. We continue to provide appropriate consular services to Mr. Brunson and his family. He does have an attorney who may be able to answer some additional questions about his legal case.

QUESTION: Final one: There are about dozen or more American and Turkish American citizens in Turkey prison since the last coup attempt. How do you assess in general Turkish policy regarding these issues? Have you been able to provide consular services other citizens or are you happy with – anything change recently on this?

MS NAUERT: There have certainly been some instances of delays or denials of consular access to some of our U.S. citizens who are in Turkey, who have been detained or arrested by security forces. Some of them are also dual nationals who possess Turkish citizenship, and some of this all continues. So – just want to remind folks that in accordance with the Geneva – excuse me, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, the United States has a legal right to access our U.S. citizens who have been detained in Turkey and who do not also possess Turkish citizenship. U.S. citizens – although the United States does not have a legal right to access the dual citizens, and that’s the case in quite a few countries – Iran, for example – U.S.-Turkish citizens detained in Turkey, and we continue to press for access to them.

Okay. All right, guys. We’re going to have to wrap it up there.

QUESTION: Can I get another too?

MS NAUERT: Matt, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Just wondering if you had anything – any response from the Cambodians to your message the other day, or if there’s any – have there been any developments, improvement, or regression in the situation? That, and then secondly – well --

MS NAUERT: Want me to do that one first?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay. So just a couple things: Since you asked and are interested in that and – we have a lot of concerns about the situation in Cambodia. I was able to put together sort of a list of some of our meetings, some specifics – ways that we have reached out to the Government of Cambodia to express our concern about what they’re doing with regard to newspapers, publications, Radio Free Asia, Voice of America, and the organization that you used to work for as well.

A couple things here. Our ambassador has had numerous meetings. The most recent one was on August the 22nd in which he met with the head of the Cambodian tax authority to urge Cambodia to avoid the perception and the reality of using the tax code in a biased fashion against entities they perceive to be as their enemies. We talked about this yesterday where they’re imposing exorbitant taxes on these entities. It seems to drive them out of business. So that is a huge concern of ours.

He also had some meetings back in June with the prime minister. They talked overall about freedoms in Cambodia, including freedom of the press, democracy, and so forth. Our Under Secretary Shannon has had meetings on this issue here in Washington. He met with the foreign minister. I can’t remember if we talked about that at the time, but they talked about our commitment to democracy.

So these conversations – it’s just a sprinkling of a few that have taken place. The Secretary has written to the foreign minister about these types of issues and our concerns.

QUESTION: Was that recent?

MS NAUERT: He wrote to them earlier this spring.

QUESTION: Have they given an --

MS NAUERT: So these conversations are certainly ongoing.

QUESTION: Do you know, to the best of your knowledge, have the Cambodians given you any sense of where they got the idea that journalists or news organizations would be the enemy?

MS NAUERT: No, I – they haven’t --

QUESTION: No?

MS NAUERT: They haven’t, not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Even after what I told you the other day?

MS NAUERT: Even after what you told me the other day, certainly.

QUESTION: Okay. And then --

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

QUESTION: Okay. And the second follow-up is on – now it’s – we have a week now – this is Russia – before the – and I’m just wondering, have the staff reductions begun? Or I mean, because it seemed – the clock is – the clock is ticking.

MS NAUERT: Right, right. Just to sort of reiterate some of the points that I made yesterday, we consider this to be regrettable. This is not our choice to have to reduce the number of U.S. staff and U.S. personnel serving in Russia. Not only does it affect our employees and people who are simply trying to do the work of promoting democracy, helping Americans, et cetera, overseas, but it also hurts Russian citizens. We have many Russian citizens who work for the United States as locally employed staff. They will now be out of jobs. President Putin claims that he cares about the economy in Russia. That’s a funny way of showing it, caring about the economy by putting your people out of work. The Russian Government knew the impact of these staff cuts and the impacts that it would have. We have until September 1st in order to – that deadline in order to get back to the Russian Government about our next steps.

To answer your question, in terms of Americans, yes, some of them are now being brought home and are in the process of that.

QUESTION: Okay. Maybe – is it – I thought that the staff – the reduction of staff had to be done by September 1st. Is it your understanding that you just needed to reply to the Russians by September 1st?

MS NAUERT: We have said that --

QUESTION: Maybe I’m – I might have this wrong.

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure, but we have said we will respond by September the 1st.

QUESTION: Right, but when – but my – I had been under the impression that your response was going to be pulling the – reducing – reducing the – reducing the staff.

MS NAUERT: That’s a good question. I’m not – I’m not sure.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Let me – let me double-check that for you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS NAUERT: All right, guys. Everybody, thanks a lot. And if anyone’s off next week, have a great vacation. I’ll be off next week, so – but we will try to bring you briefings and other people who can fill your newspapers and all of that, publications and everything.

You’re on --

QUESTION: Televisions?

QUESTION: With me.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: We’re on vacation together? Okay all right. Everybody, take care. Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:04 p.m.)

DPB # 47

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 - August 18, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





August 18, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

SPAIN



MISCELLANEOUS



SPAIN



DEPARTMENT



SPAIN



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/TURKEY



IRAQ/SYRIA



CHINA



DEPARTMENT



JAPAN/REGION



DPRK/RUSSIA



DEPARTMENT/RUSSIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:21 p.m. EDT

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

QUESTION: Friday.

QUESTION: Tired.

MS NAUERT: I know, Friday – ready for the week to be over, right? Okay. But it has been a busy couple days, certainly.

Let me start out by first addressing what happened in Spain yesterday and overnight. The United States wants to strongly condemn the terror attack that took place in Barcelona, Spain. We extend our condolences to the family and loved ones of the victims and the people of Spain, as well as our hopes for a quick recovery for those who have been wounded. The United States stands in solidarity with Spain. Crimes like this cowardly attack only reinforce our shared resolve to stop these senseless attacks that target the innocent.

The U.S. consulate general in Barcelona continues to work with local authorities to identify and provide assistance to U.S. citizens affected by the terror attacks in Las Ramblas and in Cambrils. As Secretary Tillerson said earlier today, we can confirm that one American citizen was killed in that attack, and our thoughts and prayers go out to his family and his friends. We can also confirm that there was a injury of another U.S. citizen. It was a minor injury, we’re told. Out of respect for the family’s privacy and in their time of grief, we have no further comment on that matter.

Spanish authorities report that there are still several casualties who have not yet been identified. The U.S. consulate in Barcelona continues to issue emergency and security messages to update U.S. citizens in the area. U.S. citizens are advised to maintain security awareness and monitor media and local information sources. We also strongly encourage U.S. citizens in Barcelona to contact their family and friends back here in the United States to directly inform them of their safety and their security. President Trump spoke with President Rajoy today to – and said to him that we stand ready to offer any assistance necessary to Spanish authorities as they pursue their investigation.

As a second matter today, I’d like to bring this up. It’s something that takes place tomorrow, actually, and that is World Humanitarian Day. It is a time to protect aid – or recognize, rather, aid workers who have lost their lives to protect the world’s most vulnerable people. We come together as an international community on August the 19th to honor the brave men and women who heroically risk everything to serve those who are in need around the world. Nearly 300 aid workers worldwide were killed, injured, or kidnapped in 2016 alone, a particularly dangerous year for humanitarian staff. Providing humanitarian assistance and saving lives is growing harder as crises and conflicts grow in complexity and also strain scarce resources.

Violations of international law put aid workers in grave danger. The numbers tell a pretty tough story. An unprecedented number, 141.1 million people across 37 countries, are now in immediate need of assistance. Just this week the United Nations confirmed that the number of South Sudanese refugees in Uganda has topped 1 million people as the conflict in South Sudan has created the world’s fastest-growing refugee crisis. The United States has a long and distinguished history of helping people in need as a result of conflict and natural disasters. The United States and our humanitarian partners are responding to crises around the world, providing life-saving assistance to some of the world’s most vulnerable citizens. In 2016 the United States, the world’s leading humanitarian donor, contributed more than $7 billion to humanitarian efforts around the globe. This World Humanitarian Day we remain committed to saving lives and recognize the tremendous service of all humanitarian heroes, including our brave aid workers and partners on the ground. And we want to thank them for their bravery and their work.

With that, I will take your questions.

QUESTION: Just very quickly --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Matt.

QUESTION: -- on Barcelona --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- before I get to something – can you at least – I realize you can’t give details about the two casualties, but were they killed in – were they in Barcelona or in the other place?

MS NAUERT: They were in Barcelona.

QUESTION: Okay, and in light --

MS NAUERT: The one American who was killed was in Barcelona.

QUESTION: Do you know about the injured?

MS NAUERT: The other injury – I believe the other injury was in Barcelona as well. I can double check that for you.

QUESTION: Okay. And was the injured person you referred to – his family, for the person who died, it – can you be more specific about the sex of the injury? Man or woman?

MS NAUERT: Two males. Two men.

QUESTION: Two men. Okay. All right. And then I just wanted to go to – my understanding is that your email system is back up. Is that correct?

MS NAUERT: Temporarily back up. So our email system – so if any of you had emailed us this morning and did not get a response, that was not intentional. Our email system has been down since --

QUESTION: Not necessarily intentionally.

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) I would never not get back to you all.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) She says speak for yourself. Carol texted me. (Laughter.) Nevertheless, it has been quite a headache today. Our email system has been down. It was brought up just a short while ago. I understand they’re still working through some of the details. It’s something that was a technical glitch – that’s how our folks are describing it, right?

STAFF: Internal issue.

MS NAUERT: We literally got off the phone with them 20 seconds ago. A little longer than that. And so it was – what was – remind me.

STAFF: Internal issue.

MS NAUERT: It was just an internal issue, so if there’s anything different on that, we’ll bring that to you.

QUESTION: Well, when you say “internal issue,” can you – can – you can rule out that this was, like, kind of a sabotage or an outside hacker? Because – I just remind you, this was well before your time, but in 2014 we had this issue, and we were basically given false information that this was – that the system was shut down for routine maintenance, when, in fact, it was shut down so that the technicians could go in and do battle with hackers who had infiltrated it. So you’re assuring us that there’s nothing like that?

MS NAUERT: To my awareness, there’s nothing – that is not the case.

QUESTION: And it’s just the unclassified system?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, thank you. Unclassified system.

QUESTION: Okay. But – so when you say temporarily back up, you don’t expect it to go down again, do you?

MS NAUERT: I would hope not. There are some glitches that they’re still working out. I got a big batch of emails in about 10 minutes ago, and then didn’t. So we’re kind of sharing with you how the sausage is being made right now. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: So it’s like everyone else’s email system – it goes up, and then goes – when it goes down, it comes back sporadically.

MS NAUERT: I think so.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s all I have.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I mean, I have other stuff, but other people --

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay. Would anyone like to talk about email or Spain? Let’s try to stick to a more organized system of regions today.

QUESTION: Spanish email.

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Spain? Yeah, hi.

QUESTION: Just generally, Heather, on Spain, is the fact that an American was killed, does that change the U.S. involvement in the investigation at all, or the U.S. response at all?

MS NAUERT: Well, we have a very close partnership and collaboration with the Spanish authorities and with the Spanish Government. The President just talked to their president a short while ago. Secretary Tillerson spoke to this yesterday, as did Mike – Vice President Mike Pence. Among the things that we have said to the Spanish Government is that we are standing by and willing to offer any assistance that they might need in the investigation or with resources in terms of helping out their folks on the ground there. That hasn’t changed; we still stand by that, and are willing – the entire body of the U.S. Government – willing to stand by to help the Spanish.

QUESTION: Actually, on Spain, do you – I mean, apparently it was a much more complex attack and a more dangerous attack was planned using butane explosives or something like that, and then there was a couple of weeks ago a plot in Australia that the Australian authorities disrupted, and they said it was very sophisticated and was supposed to involve some sort of chemical agent. Do you see that ISIS is stepping up its attacks as it’s losing territory?

MS NAUERT: You raise a good point about how ISIS is losing territory. And we know that coalition partners, backed by the United States in Iraq and also Syria, have taken back much, much of that territory that ISIS held in the first place. As that continues to happen, as they lose ground – they’ve lost like 70 percent of the ground that they had initially taken in Iraq, more than 50 percent of the ground that they had initially taken in Syria – they become more desperate. We do know that other European attacks that happened in the last year were plotted out of Raqqa, Syria. That is one of the reasons that the coalition has focused so much on the city of Raqqa and taking back Raqqa from ISIS, because some of those plots were hatched from Raqqa. We know that as a fact.

What has happened now may just be an instance where they are trying to show that they may still hold some relevancy as we continue to take back ground from them.

QUESTION: So you think it’s too early to say there’s any pattern of escalating attacks?

MS NAUERT: I can’t say – I can’t say that. I don’t want to draw any conclusions. Spanish authorities are investigating that; I don’t want to get ahead of any of their investigations.

Anything else on Spain? Okay, let’s move on to something else. Go right ahead, Rich.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. On today’s announcement on diversity, and the Secretary’s comments on race relations in the country. It seems obvious, but just to ask: How much did Charlottesville play into the timing and the content of the Secretary’s remarks, and the announcement for this new diversity initiative? And how long has he been constructing this or thinking about it?

MS NAUERT: Sure. So let me take you back quite a few months. The Secretary’s first day on the job, when he came in here and he went into the main hallway at the front where all the flags are at the State Department, he looked out across the crowd, and one of the things that he said to our employees is, “When people see you, they see America.” Meaning, looking at the minorities, looking at all the different faces, the different types of names and everything – that is America, and that’s what we represent, not just here in America but also overseas. And that’s a priority for him.

Let me take you to about two weeks ago, and that’s when Deputy Secretary Sullivan spoke at our town hall meeting. One of the things that he said – it was closed press, but one of the things that he did share with the people at our town hall meeting, and who were also watching overseas who work at the State Department, was we have a commitment to diversity, and we can do a whole lot better than we currently do as a State Department.

And so that was really the genesis of the Secretary’s comments today, in bringing in some of our interns and our – those who are involved in our fellowship programs here, Pickering and Rangel – we’ve talked about that program that intends to bring in diverse applicants into our Foreign Service program. So that’s one of the things that the Secretary focused on today, bringing them all in and addressing the issue of diversity.

This also takes place as we undergo the redesign of the State Department, and in undergoing the redesign of the State Department, this is something that we’ll consider. We look at our overall mission and we look at our overall objectives and the scope of what we do, and this is one way to reflect on that. So the Secretary is making this a big priority of his.

QUESTION: But certainly, he was aware of the timing of this just a few days after Charlottesville?

MS NAUERT: Oh, and I think one would be remiss if they didn’t touch on what had happened in Charlottesville over this past week. And that’s a good reminder for all of us, not just here but Americans serving abroad, that what happened last week in Charlottesville is not representative of America. Yes, we have freedom of speech. Yes, that is something that we embrace. Hatred is not something we embrace. It’s not who we are as a people. That’s not what we want to show overseas. But it reminds us that there is still a battle that can go on internally within our own country, and it’s something that we’re working to address and to try to fix.

QUESTION: Can I --

QUESTION: So what’s --

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, sure. Hey, Elise.

QUESTION: Hi. Well, it seemed as if it was a not-so-subtle repudiation of the President’s declaration that both sides were to blame, and kind of equating the hate speech protesters and those that were protesting the statue with the peaceful protesters. And when he also brought up – when he invoked George Washington at a synagogue, kind of indirect – antithetical to President Trump’s remarks that George Washington was no different than Robert E. Lee.

MS NAUERT: I think what the Secretary was stating is what we all think about America and what we represent as Americans, and those are the best ideals. And we represent diversity as Americans. We represent hope. The Secretary talked about this today, where we’re the kind of country where it doesn’t matter where you came from, it doesn’t matter what your parents did, it doesn’t matter what your last name is, that you too can succeed. And I think he’s hoping to not just underscore those ideals but to help promote them across the country and across the world as well.

QUESTION: Well, would it be wrong of us to infer from his remarks that he does not believe that both sides were to blame for last week’s incidents?

MS NAUERT: I have not asked him that question, but I think he was very clear, and I will restate some of this for you. Those who embrace poison in our public discourse, they damage the very country that they claim to love. We condemn racism. We condemn bigotry in all of its forms. Racism is evil. It is antithetical to American values. It’s antithetical to the American idea. So I think the Secretary was clear in his personal beliefs about that.

QUESTION: On this?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: He mentioned that you would be keeping in place the Pickering and Rangel fellowship programs, which we – you had said before. I know that. But he said – he said all fellowship programs. Does that include the Presidential Management Fellows?

MS NAUERT: I believe so. Let me double-check that part of it for you, though.

QUESTION: So when exactly is the – I mean, the hiring freeze, with the certain exceptions that have been made already for the two A-100 classes, is in – is still in place, correct?

MS NAUERT: Yes. So the – there’s a department-wide hiring freeze. The Secretary touched on that this morning. That hiring freeze was put in place earlier this year so we could kind of get a better temporary – it was a temporary hiring freeze.

QUESTION: So --

MS NAUERT: But to get a better sense as to who we have here, what our folks are doing, and what current jobs are open and what current jobs are perhaps duplicative.

QUESTION: Right. So it is still not being lifted and it won’t be lifted until after the reorganization is complete?

MS NAUERT: I’m not certain about the time in which it will be lifted. All I can tell you is that it’s temporary. I think that’s something that’s still under consideration.

QUESTION: Okay. Because there’s a lot of angst and stress among this building and among former officials who think – or who have been under the impression that these programs are going away and that the Secretary was not committed to having a full – a full and effective complement of diplomats in the Foreign Service. Is that incorrect?

MS NAUERT: Well, here’s what I can tell you. The Pickering and Rangel fellows program is staying. We have a new class that’s incoming. I talked with some of the fellows this afternoon and asked them what they thought about the speech and asked them how they’re enjoying the program, and they gave it all a thumbs up. So I know that they’re pleased with it. Of course they’re very happy that the program is remaining and we are as well, and talking with a lot of Foreign Service officers in the building, even the white guys, they all said, “We love this. We love this program. We’re so pleased that it’s staying.” So I think building-wide I can speak for that – the importance of diversity, and kidding aside. But the importance of diversity to the programs here.

QUESTION: Well, so do you have any idea how quickly the Secretary envisions building the Foreign Service up to a point where it does reflect the face of America or it does reflect the diversity of America?

MS NAUERT: So part of the program here – and this is something that he kind of outlined in broad brush strokes earlier today – to build a recruiting team, to go out to some schools in different places around the country so that people don’t necessarily have to seek us out – and I’m not talking just about Foreign Service officers, but this would also apply to civil servants as well, according to my understanding of it – but where we would try to build up relationships with various institutions, where we would go out and basically do recruiting, talk to different students on different campuses and so forth. One of the things that they want to do is hold minority-focused job fairs and see that as a way of helping to introduce the State Department to people who may not normally know about the State Department and know about careers available here.

Another interesting idea the Secretary brought up was looking to our veterans, our veterans across the country, many of whom are getting out of the military and are looking for a civilian career now. They are a talented, important work pool, a workforce that knows how to get things done and knows how to get things done in difficult circumstances, and that really mirrors what we do here at the State Department. So the Secretary has talked about how he wants to try to recruit veterans and bring in veterans. So those are just kind of among the big toplines that we would focus on here.

QUESTION: Right, but for the students that’s clearly a multiyear process, because you’re not going to be able to get these people in and then get them into senior positions where, if the stat is correct that he mentioned, only 12 percent of the senior Foreign Service is non-white, which is far more pale, male, and Yale than I actually ever thought it was, but – and I’ve been here for quite a long time.

MS NAUERT: I know.

QUESTION: But the issue that – or the question I have is: Previous Secretaries have tried to do exactly the same thing, and this veterans idea is not new, and in fact, veterans get preference for hiring in all federal civilian jobs. But there was a particular push in this building years ago, and it still doesn’t seem to have worked. So I guess my question is what exactly is going to be different this time around, because we had Secretary Powell notice this and see it, Secretary Rice too, and so --

MS NAUERT: Matt, I’d have to go back and look – I’d have to go back and look at the numbers, the recruiting numbers and then the number of people who actually joined the State Department, the Foreign Service, and other programs that we have here, to see where it is now compared to where it was five, 10 years from now. So I’d have to go back and actually look at the data and compare the program that the Secretary has outlined – again, broad brush strokes, but outlined now – compared with the programs before. If you want me to do that, I can take a day or so to dive into that and try to figure it out, but I know that this is something that the Secretary --

QUESTION: If I say yes, you’ll never talk to me again, right?

MS NAUERT: No, of course I will. But it would take me some time to figure all that stuff out. That would be data-driven. But I know – I can tell you that this is important to the Secretary and this is something that he really wants to do.

QUESTION: Right. But I – well, I – I mean, you don’t have to personally do it. Perhaps there is some way to quickly find out whether the numbers of the – minority numbers have been going up or going down or have been static over the course of the years despite these programs.

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not going to promise you that today, but we can certainly look into it. Okay? Okay. And you reporters out there, don’t start writing this and give me a deadline of 5 o’clock today, because it’s going to take a while to hunt down those numbers.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Thank you, Matt.

Okay. Sir, hi. How are you?

QUESTION: China.

MS NAUERT: China. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I ask one more question on Charlottesville?

MS NAUERT: Sure, of course.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary ever plan to publicly address what he thought of President Trump’s remarks about Charlottesville? And do you know if – since they speak so frequently, do you know if he has had a private conversation with him telling him what he thought of – specifically about his remarks? Not just the incident itself, but the reaction.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. A couple things. I know the Secretary has spoken with the President this week – not in person, but he’s spoken with him by phone. I’m not aware of whether or not it was a one-on-one call or whether it was just a group call, like a principals’ call or something of that sort, but I know he has spoken with the President this week. As you know, right now he’s at Camp David, and that’s where we’re – they’re having conversations, so that conversation may be going on at this time. I know that the Secretary has spoken out on two occasions about race this week alone: one as he was meeting with the foreign minister from Canada, in which he addressed what happened in Charlottesville; and then I think his overall views on race and diversity and the place in America that it properly holds today. So I think the Secretary has spoken a fair bit about that.

Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: Do you have any more on how the ambassadors are going to be – the pool is going to be selected, how that – having a minority in that group with the --

MS NAUERT: Oh, I’m glad you asked that. One of the things the Secretary mentioned today is that when we look at our ambassadorial candidates at that pool, that the Secretary wants to have someone who represents a minority represented in those interviews to be interviewed for the job. And the Secretary said perhaps if that person is not ready yet for that position, that gives us a good opportunity to know who that person is and have that person on our radar and help bring that person along into the future. So it helps to identify a quality base of candidates and helps the State Department to better work with them to get them to that position which they aspire to.

QUESTION: Is that effective immediately?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. I don’t know. I didn't get a chance to ask him that. Okay.

Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: There are reports that Turkey is attacking the Syrian Kurdish city of Ephraim. Is that what’s going on? And if so, what is your reaction? What is happening in Ephraim?

MS NAUERT: So I’ve seen that report, and I – I’m afraid I just don’t have anything for you on that right now.

QUESTION: Well, then, I have another question.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thanks. Iraq has requested – has formally requested the UN’s help in investigating ISIS for war crimes. Can you give us some idea of what the next steps are going to be and what your role is going to be in that?

MS NAUERT: So one of the things we’ve addressed here before is the amount of aid that we’ve helped to provide to Iraq, I believe also through the United Nations as well. I would need to double check on that. I have it in my notes somewhere. And part – what that is – the aim of that is to help the Iraqi Government and to help the United Nations to be able to identify some of those who have been involved in these – what we can call war crimes, genocide, and all of that.

So the United States is putting financial aid so that they can – they can kind of better handle that situation.

QUESTION: So how does this request to the UN change things, does it get more parties involved, make it formal?

MS NAUERT: Yeah – I’m not sure exactly. So I’d have to just look into that further and get back to you on it. Okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi. Hi. What’s your name?

QUESTION: Omur Sahin from BirGun, a Turkish newspaper.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I’m going to ask about the Reuters interview with Syria Democratic Forces spokesperson, that he said --

MS NAUERT: An interview with who?

QUESTION: With Syria Democratic Forces spokesperson.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: He said the U.S. will remain long after ISIS is defeated. I’m going to ask if you have a comment on that. And also, are you having some discussions with Syria Democratic Forces about your further plans in the region?

MS NAUERT: Are we having conversations with who?

QUESTION: With Syria Democratic Forces.

MS NAUERT: Oh, with the Syrian Democratic Forces --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: -- about – okay. So the United States and coalition partners work with the SDF, the Syrian Democratic Forces, and the main goal in working with that entity, that group, was to take back Raqqa. We know that they are tried and true and tested, battle tested, battle ready, to take out ISIS, and they’ve done a good job of that. That operation, of course, is still underway to take out ISIS from Raqqa. So we have worked with them. We see that as something that’s being done in a very focused fashion and not in broader fashion.

In terms of what you are referring to – that interview – I’m familiar with that interview, and let me just kind of point back to what one of our colleagues, someone over at Department of Defense, was talking about and that is our overall mission. And our overall mission, and we’re not taking our eye off the ball in this regard, is to defeat ISIS. Whether it’s in Iraq or in Syria, that is our intent, to defeat ISIS and not do anything more than that. We want Syria governed by Syrians, not by the United States, not by any other forces, but by Syrians.

QUESTION: So you say you’re not planning to stay after defeating ISIS?

MS NAUERT: Look, that is not our plan. Our intent is to defeat ISIS, and we’re keeping our focus on that.

Okay, hi.

QUESTION: China?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary --

MS NAUERT: Oh, wait. By the way, anything else on Syria?

Okay, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Does the Secretary believe that U.S. is at economic war with China?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Does the Secretary believe that the U.S. is at economic war with China?

MS NAUERT: I have not asked him that question. I think what you’re probably referring to is our – Mr. Lighthizer, who handles trade for us. Is that – is that what you’re trying to get at?

QUESTION: But does China pose any kind of economic national security --

MS NAUERT: I have not – I have not asked the Secretary that. I know the Secretary continues to recognize China as a country we can have close cooperation with on many issues, on many fronts. They’ve been extremely helpful to us now in dealing with DPRK and – but again, I haven’t asked him that question.

I know that the administration overall looks at China and looks at some of its trade practices and has concerns about it, and that’s a matter that other institutions are going to take up within the U.S. Government.

QUESTION: I don’t think he was referring to Mr. – the trade representative, Mr. Lighthizer. I think he was referring to a view of China expressed by the until-several-hours ago chief strategist of the White House in an interview --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- in an interview with a magazine in which the – this now former official also went after a career State Department official who handles China.

MS NAUERT: Now I understand what you’re --

QUESTION: Do you have --

MS NAUERT: Now I understand what you’re talking about. My apologies, sir.

QUESTION: Do you – or do you know, does the Secretary have a view on those comments? He said yesterday that he had seen them. I’m wondering if he does have a – if he – does he share the view of China that the former chief strategist of the President evinced?

MS NAUERT: That he what?

QUESTION: Evinced. That he spoke about to the magazine, that the --

MS NAUERT: Which one – which part – portion of those comments in particular are you referring to?

QUESTION: The – that the United States is at – in an economic war with China.

MS NAUERT: I have not asked the Secretary that question. He’s not here right now. He mentioned that he’s aware of the comments, but we’ve been focused on a lot of bigger things – bigger things meaning DPRK, and bigger things in terms of what’s going on today and their meeting with the President today.

QUESTION: Right.

QUESTION: On that issue – sorry --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi.

QUESTION: -- it was pretty well-known when he said it in the interview that Mr. Bannon opposed the role that Susan Thornton was playing. Now that he’s removed – and it’s quite well-known that Secretary Tillerson favored Ms. Thornton to be the actual assistant secretary for East Asian affairs as opposed to acting – does the Secretary now see the way clear for her to take that position officially?

MS NAUERT: Susan Thornton is fantastic. A lot of us have worked here quite closely with Susan. Susan’s been a part of the tip of the spear in dealing with the DPRK and she’s done it – she makes it look like it’s effortless and I cannot imagine that it is. But she handles herself very, very well, and she happens to be a very smart and accomplished woman as well. The news about Mr. Bannon broke about 11 o’clock today. The Secretary landed – or arrived at Camp David sometime after that or not long thereafter, so we have not had a chance to talk about this in particular.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hey, how are you?

QUESTION: Thanks. I want to go over the meetings that happened yesterday --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- the 2+2. First, I just wanted to know if you had, like, a readout about how the meetings went. Did they go as expected? And then also, within the joint statement, I noticed that THAAD was never mentioned. And I didn’t know, was that never brought up during these meetings, or what’s the situation with that?

MS NAUERT: Okay. A couple things: For the meeting that took place yesterday between the two-by-two – excuse me, the 2+2 between the Secretary and his counterpart, and also Secretary Mattis and his counterpart as well, they defined their shared roles, their missions, their capabilities, under the alliance that was going forward.

As you know, the Secretary then met later on in the afternoon with his counterpart and their staffs as well. They talked about the strong trade and investment relationship between the United States and Japan, they talked about the administration engaging Japan to reduce barriers to trade and investment, they talked about enhancing economic and job growth in the United States and the region. They also touched upon DPRK. I was sitting in the meeting and I don’t recall the topic of THAAD coming up, but if one of them isn’t going to raise it, then they’re not going to raise it.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Kono?

MS NAUERT: Okay. I hope that answers your question. Hi.

QUESTION: Yesterday during the press conference, both sides actually raised their concern in East and South China Sea. So today the Chinese foreign ministry’s spokesperson said United States and Japan, which are not parties in South China Sea, should respect the effort made by countries in the region to solve the issues peacefully with their – through coordination and negotiation. I wonder if you have a response to that.

MS NAUERT: So in terms of the South China Sea, our position remains the same. Nothing has changed with regard to that, and we’ve talked about it many times here and so I’d just prefer to leave it at that.

QUESTION: And particularly in the joint statement, there was this line mentioned that both sides recalled the incidents in 2016 August. I wonder, because it has been a year – I’m referring to the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands – and I wonder what’s – since it’s been a year, what’s the urgency and need for United States and Japan to bring this – brought up this issue again? And also, they both highlighted the article of the mutual defense treaty between Japan and United States and they also especially emphasized Article 5. So what’s the reason behind it? I wonder if you could elaborate.

MS NAUERT: So in terms of the Senkaku Islands, our position on that is – has not changed, and that has been clear, I think, all along. They’ve been under Japanese administration since the reversion of Okinawa back in 1972. They fall within the scope of Article 5, so that’s the – the technical definition or what encompasses the governing of that – of the 1960 U.S.-Japan Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security. So we oppose any unilateral action that seeks to undermine Japan’s administration of those islands.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Thank you. Hi, sir.

QUESTION: Can we move to North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: So a couple of days ago, Foreign Minister Lavrov in a statement to TASS made a very interesting statement basically saying, we cannot support the ideas that some of our partners continue to put forward and that literally aim to economically strangle North Korea. Now, it seems that the United States position is to economically strangle North Korea until they come to the denuclearization and stop their missile programs. So how do you square that? What do your – what’s your response to this?

MS NAUERT: And remind me, you work for who again?

QUESTION: Yomiuri Shimbun, Japanese newspaper.

MS NAUERT: Japanese. Okay. So I just ask that because you’re reading the Russian talking points – (laughter) – so that’s why I wanted to know about that.

Look, it’s not just the United States. The DPRK would like to paint this as a conflict or as a stressor between the United States and the DPRK. It is hardly that. The entire world looks at what North Korea has been doing in terms of its illegal nuclear and ballistic missiles programs, and see – the entire world sees that as a threat. We saw that at the UN Security Council through its resolution.

One of the ways that we believe that we can help get Kim Jong-un to the table to start negotiate is by showing him the repercussions of his actions, and the repercussions of his actions – he can – we will increasingly make the situation difficult for him. By that, I mean they get their money, they bring their money in, and it funds their weapons programs. By tightening the belt on North Korea, by ensuring that they don’t take in as much money as they have in the past, that helps to reduce the amount of money going into their weapons program. That we see as a key threat. The Secretary has talked about that; Secretary Tillerson, Secretary Mattis in their op-ed earlier this week. That’s one way that we can address the issue. And Kim Jong-un can see how isolated he will become – not just from the United States, but the world – if he maintains that.

QUESTION: Was that really just earlier this week?

MS NAUERT: I know.

QUESTION: It seems like – (laughter) --

MS NAUERT: I know. That was Monday.

QUESTION: It seems like a long time ago.

MS NAUERT: It does feel like a long week, doesn’t it?

QUESTION: Time has no meaning anymore.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Well, I’m sensing everybody’s a little sleepy here on a Friday. It’s a summer Friday in August, so thanks, everybody, for coming in. We sure appreciate it.

QUESTION: Isn’t no briefing on Fridays an August old tradition?

MS NAUERT: I would – (laughter) – but you know what, Elise? So many of you wanted to do more. Okay?

QUESTION: It’s true. It’s why we’re all here.

MS NAUERT: So look, look, let’s just – but wait, let’s just back up for a second.

QUESTION: That’s why we’re all here.

MS NAUERT: Let’s just back up for a second and take a look at this week. Okay? So Tuesday, we had our briefing, right. Wednesday, I went over to the Foreign Press Center and spent some time with just a couple of you but some other folks, so that was fantastic to be over there. Yesterday, we had the 2+2 with Secretary Tillerson and his counterparts. And then today, we had the briefing and, by the way, brought in Mark Green, the new USAID administrator, to speak with many of you.

QUESTION: Can I ask --

MS NAUERT: So – hold on – thank you all for all the engagements that you’ve been involved with, and we’ve been trying to bring as much as we can.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: A Russia question real quick? So the – (laughter) --

MS NAUERT: We said goodbye already.

QUESTION: This is a little sudden. So the drawdown is in process; it has to be done by September 1st. Do you all have any sense yet of which of the – there’s three consulates and an embassy – which posts you’re removing people from, what the mix is?

MS NAUERT: I – look, I don’t have anything for you on that. I know that we have agreed to provide a response to the Russian Government by September the 1st, and we so we plan to adhere to that, and that’s all I have.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Have a great weekend.

QUESTION: You too.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)

DPB # 45

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 - August 15, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





August 15, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA/REGION



IRAN



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



IRAQ/REGION



INDIA



AFGHANISTAN



INDIA/CHINA/REGION


TRANSCRIPT:

2:52 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: We’ve had a busy day here today at the State Department, starting with the Secretary announcing the International Religious Freedom Report and the rollout of that today. Earlier today, the Secretary released the State Department’s Annual Report on International Religious Freedom that provides an overview of the status of religious freedom today in nearly 199 countries and territories. In his remarks, Secretary Tillerson affirmed that religious freedom is a foreign policy priority in this administration. As the Secretary said today, “No one should have to live in fear, worship in secret, or face discrimination, because of his or her religious beliefs.”

The Secretary also called out the egregious examples of those who deny individuals their fundamental freedom to exercise or practice their religion or belief. In particular, he called out the crimes of ISIS for what those crimes are – genocide. There can be no doubt about that. ISIS is clearly responsible for genocide against Yezidis, Christians, and Shia Muslims in areas it controlled.

The protection of these groups and others subject to violent extremism is a human rights priority in the Trump administration. Thanks to the hard work of the men and women at the State Department and the administration’s commitment to the issue, there is no nation as dedicated or as effective at advancing religious freedom as the United States. The 2016 Annual Report on International Religious Freedom can be found on our website, and that is a big part of our effort.

Secondly, I’d like to take the opportunity to welcome two new colleagues here at the State Department this week. First, Nathan Sales has started his work as the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism. We had a nice chat yesterday, so welcome to him. Before he joined us, Mr. Sales was an associate professor at Syracuse University College of Law. That is where he wrote in the fields of national security and counterterrorism. He previously served as deputy assistant secretary for policy at the Department of Homeland Security, and as senior counsel at the Office of Legal Policy at the Department of Justice. Welcome, Nathan Sales.

Also, Carl Risch started this week as the assistant secretary for Consular Affairs. Carl has been serving as acting chief of staff in the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services. He was previously the field office director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services at the American Embassy in Seoul, South Korea. He’s also a former Foreign Service officer, so we are thrilled to have him back here at the State Department. Welcome.

With that, I will take your questions. Matt, would you like to start?

QUESTION: Thank you, yes. We may get back to the Religious Freedom Report --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- which is really important, but I wanted to start with North Korea, which seems – the Secretary upstairs, when asked about the latest, said he didn’t have any comment on the pronouncement from Pyongyang on the Guam tests or plans for the Guam tests. But – and he said that you continue to be open to having a dialogue. Is it still the position of the administration that the North Koreans have to do something other than just say “we want to talk” before you’ll sit down with them?

MS NAUERT: I think so. I mean, the Secretary, I think, was pretty clear about that today. Just a couple days ago he spoke about this as well. He said, look, we’ll talk, but they have to take some serious steps. Susan Thornton, our acting assistant secretary for East Asia Pacific, who’s been very engaged with the Secretary on this issue, has said the same thing. Look, we’re willing to sit down and talk with them, but it appears that that’s not – that’s not going to happen imminently. They have to take some serious steps before we get there.

QUESTION: All right. Well, does not doing something count as a step? (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: I think they would have to be a little bit more clear.

QUESTION: So --

MS NAUERT: And again, when Kim Jong-un talked about Guam, that, again, is a hypothetical of sorts.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: So they would have to do a lot more.

QUESTION: Well, okay. So just to be clear, not launching ballistic missiles towards Guam is not enough for you guys to talk with them?

MS NAUERT: I feel like that’s sort of a question that my child might propose. (Laughter.) If my child were to say, “Hey, Mom, if I don’t steal this cookie, will you then give me television?”

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: No. The answer’s no on that one. I think we can all relate to that.

QUESTION: Are you suggesting, then, that Kim Jong-un is a child?

MS NAUERT: No. I am not suggesting – I am not suggesting that. I’m just suggesting it’s such an extreme hypothetical to reward someone for not doing something.

QUESTION: Well, right.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But it’s – oh, okay. So what, in other words, then, do they – must they do affirmatively or positively --

MS NAUERT: And I’m not going to go down that rabbit hole. I mean, the Secretary has been clear about we will see it – they know what they need to do to get us to come to the negotiating table. We are willing to have talks about this. This is obviously a very serious matter – cookies and children aside, a serious matter. They know what they need to do, and the Secretary has said we’re not going to negotiate our way back to the negotiating table.

QUESTION: Okay. So just to put the finest point on it possible, you’re not going to go and sit down with them then unless they take steps that they know that they have to do? That’s – just them saying we’re open or we’re not – we’re going to hold off on sending missiles towards Guam is not going to get you interested in having a dialogue; that is correct?

MS NAUERT: I think they would have to do quite a bit more.

QUESTION: All right, thanks.

MS NAUERT: Hi. Dave, hey.

QUESTION: Hi. If they know what they have to do, what’s the problem in us knowing what they have to do?

MS NAUERT: Some of these would involve private diplomatic conversations that we have with our friends in the region. I think the main point here is that the U.S., along with our partners and allies – we’re all on the same page. We’re talking with a whole lot of countries about this pressure campaign, and nothing has changed.

QUESTION: So if they know what they have to do and our allies in South Korea and Japan know what they have to do, it’s only the U.S. people and our readers who don’t know what they have to do?

MS NAUERT: Well, look, Kim Jong-un, we would like to have talks with him when the time is right, when they show that they are serious, serious about an effort to move toward denuclearization. We have not seen that yet. Remember – and let me go back to this again – two nuclear tests last year, two anti – ICBM tests in a month alone. We have not seen that they’ve been serious at this point.

QUESTION: So --

MS NAUERT: Hi, Said.

QUESTION: If they – hi. If they say that we will no longer launch missiles over Guam or into that area into the Pacific, that would not be enough? I just want to understand you correctly.

MS NAUERT: I think I answered that question. Again, this can get into --

QUESTION: Yeah, but --

MS NAUERT: -- extreme hypothetical situation, and I don’t want to get into that.

QUESTION: Because they said that --

MS NAUERT: I understand.

QUESTION: They were very specific. They said, we’re going to launch a missile on that region or in that area. So if they say we will no longer do that, that is not --

MS NAUERT: And I think we’re not going to respond to every single threat and every single hypothetical.

QUESTION: So with everybody assuming that North Korea has nuclear weapons, and some say in fact put a figure on it, like 50 or 56 or something – so do they have to say okay, this is what we have, we want to denuclearize it, before you could talk with them?

MS NAUERT: They would have to show some serious steps and some serious indications that they would be willing to sit down for talks. Okay? All right.

QUESTION: One on North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: Nice see. Kim Jong-un’s bad behavior has been going on for a long time, so what United waiting for? Why didn’t do anything act to North Korea?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry? Why what?

QUESTION: Why didn’t do military actions immediately when they threating U.S. and our --

MS NAUERT: Why didn’t we undertake military actions to do so? Well, we believe that diplomacy deserves a chance. This is still a new administration, six – actually eight months now into this administration. The Secretary, Secretary Tillerson and Secretary Mattis, penned a joint editorial that ran in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal in which they talked about that, that they’re on the same page, believe firmly that diplomacy can solve this; however, we’re prepared, as we are in every situation around the globe, to switch to another plan if that is absolutely necessary. That’s a DOD issue so I’m going to stay away from that, but we believe that diplomacy is the solution here.

QUESTION: Yeah, one more on South Korea. Yesterday, President Moon Jae-in of South Korea said that remark that no one can military action on the Korean Peninsula without the South Korean Government permissions. What is U.S. position on this statement?

MS NAUERT: We have a good relationship, as you know, with the Republic of Korea. We have constant, ongoing conversations with that government. What you propose there is another hypothetical situation which I’m not going to get into, but we continue to have conversations with the Republic of Korea on a near-constant basis.

QUESTION: What if North Korean Kim Jong-un sudden attack South Korea? Can the United States engage in this military action?

MS NAUERT: As you know, South Korea is an ally of ours; and as we do with our allies and friends, we pledge to protect them as well. Okay?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: But then, that’s a hypothetical. I don’t want to get into that beyond what I’ve said. Okay, anything else on DPRK?

QUESTION: On China?

MS NAUERT: Okay, hi. Hold on one sec.

QUESTION: Right. In the – in your assessment, does the United States see a gradual change of China’s attitude toward North Korea? Do you think they see it, North Korea, more of a liability than asset?

MS NAUERT: I think – and we saw this about a week – pardon me, a week and a half ago, two weeks ago, when China voted in support of the UN Security Council resolution. We were really pleased to see them take that step. The Secretary and others have had frequent conversations with the Chinese. As you know, President Trump spoke with President Xi over the weekend, and they talked about our mutual agreement that DPRK is up to no good, and that is a security risk, not for the region but the world.

So we are asking them to do more, as we have. They’re North Korea’s primary trading partner. We believe that they have unique leverage to put pressure on North Korea. And they’ve committed to us that they’re going to follow through with those UN Security Council resolutions and making sure that those are adhered to from their endpoint. And so we look forward to having them hold up their part of the bargain. Okay.

QUESTION: So do you see their action in the United Nations Security Council as an indication of their gradually, slowly change of action?

MS NAUERT: I think it’s trending in the right direction. It’s trending in the right direction. And then President Trump and President Xi had a nice conversation over the weekend, discussing that very thing as well.

QUESTION: And then finally, you just mentioned there’s a lot more North Korea can do to resume the talk. Just for a good sound bite, could you – what else – what allowed work they should do and then not to do?

MS NAUERT: Well, North Korea would have to take some very serious steps and show us that they are serious about its interest and intent in denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. They would have to do a lot more of that. Secretary Tillerson has talked about that extensively. He’s also said: I’m not going to negotiate my way back to the negotiating table, and North Korea knows exactly what it needs to do. Let’s get serious about it.

Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: It’s not really a hypothetical. What do your agreements with South Korea say? Do you have to get their permission to launch any sort of strike?

MS NAUERT: Some of those things are diplomatic conversations and some of those would involve the Department of Defense, so I just don’t want to get into that. Okay.

QUESTION: But I mean if he says you can’t without his permission, you’re not going to respond to it?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into that. Okay? I’m not a part of that conversation that the U.S. military may be having with South Korea on that part. But they are a valuable ally of ours, as you well know, and we defend our allies.

QUESTION: Press very --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- very confuse about President Moon remark yesterday, because U.S. and South Korea is alliance. But he not want to be war in Korean Peninsula, but however U.S. supposedly involved with war when the North Korean Kim Jong-un attack the South Korea. But why he discourage it, but --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. I didn’t understand the last part.

QUESTION: President Moon doesn’t want a war in the Korean Peninsula, but --

MS NAUERT: Well, no one does.

QUESTION: Nobody want it --

MS NAUERT: No one does. We don’t want that.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: President Moon doesn’t want that. Japan doesn’t want that.

QUESTION: Exactly, but --

MS NAUERT: No one wants that. And that is why we are so, pushing hard on this diplomacy campaign. I mean, the number one thing you hear me talk about here, the number one thing you hear Secretary Tillerson talk about, is goals and efforts to try to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula, getting Kim Jong-un to give up those illegal weapons, getting him to stop with his destabilizing activities. It’s a priority, obviously, at the United Nations and the UN Security Council, where they had the unanimous vote on that matter. It’s a top issue for our friends and allies and partners around the world.

QUESTION: But this is not at all between U.S. and North Korea problem. This is – the actually problem is that the South Korea, in fact. But Moon thought this is your guys’ problem. That’s not – how did you think about – this --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. Is this our problem?

QUESTION: I mean --

MS NAUERT: I’m not understanding the question.

QUESTION: -- between the U.S. and North Korea problem. Do you think this is between the U.S. and North Korea problem?

MS NAUERT: Is this issue between the United States and North Korea? No. This is between North Korea – this is between North Korea and the world. It is not the United States standing here alone expressing concern about the activities of Kim Jong-un’s regime.

And by the way, it’s a good opportunity to remind people what it’s like for North Koreans to live under that regime. Okay. That is not a free and fair country. It is not a country where people have ample food, opportunity. It’s not a country where people can come and go as they please. It’s a country where they’re starving their own people; they’re engaged in forced abortions. Pardon me for talking about that, but that is a very grim reality there, where people are living in labor camps, it’s under horrific situations.

This is not between the United States and North Korea. It is the world looking at North Korea and condemning North Korea and that Kim Jong-un – this is not about the population there, the regular folks. This is about what Kim Jong-un is doing not only to the world but to his own people.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right. Anything else on North Korea?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: There are reports suggesting the rocket engines powering the recent successful ICBM tests in North Korea came from a state-owned Ukrainian factory. Is the State Department aware of that – or those reports? And do you have any comment on it?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. We’re certainly aware of those reports that have come out. That’s an issue that we would take very seriously, if that were to be the case. One of the things I do want to mention about this is that no single country has done more to curtail these ambitions of North Korea than the United States. There have been a lot of UN Security Council resolutions, and they obligate all nations, including Ukraine, to prevent transfers of sensitive technology to the DPRK.

In the past, I know that Ukraine has prevented the shipments of some sensitive materials to nations that we would be certainly very concerned about. We have a good, solid relationship with Ukraine. As you know, President Poroshenko was over here a couple months ago, meeting with the President, also meeting with Secretary Tillerson. As a general matter, we don’t comment on intelligence reports. Ukraine, though, we have to say has a very strong nonproliferation record and that includes specifically with respect to the DPRK. Okay.

QUESTION: Just directly a follow-up on that.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Ukraine today have confirmed that the rockets did come from the factory, but they say they were made before --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. Who confirmed this?

QUESTION: The Ukrainian Government confirmed it did come from their factory, but before 2001, when they were part of the Soviet Union. And they said those rocket motors were transferred to what is now Russian control. Do you have any --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I don’t have any information about that particular report. I’m not aware of what you said the Ukrainian Government has just said. If I have anything on that for you, I’ll get it to you, but I’m not familiar with that.

Okay. Anything else on this?

QUESTION: North Korea.

QUESTION: China.

QUESTION: Iran.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s stick with North Korea, clean out North Korea, and then we’ll go somewhere else.

QUESTION: We just --

MS NAUERT: Meaning, let’s finish that topic before we move on to something else. Okay. I just want to be clear.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) We just talked about --

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Go – hi.

QUESTION: -- China’s support for the latest UN resolution. China has supported past UN sanctions resolutions on North Korea, but the actual enforcement of those sanctions has been wanting. How much time would the U.S. sort of allow to pass before you kind of reassess whether China is actually serious about this resolution this time, and before you may start to consider secondary sanctions on Chinese companies, which I think Secretary Tillerson has hinted at, Susan Thornton hinted at as well?

MS NAUERT: Secondary sanctions have been put in place against some Chinese companies, as you’re well aware, and I believe individuals as well. This is going to be an ongoing conversation. It took many, many years to get to this very concerning point with North Korea. It’s going to take some time to try to resolve this as well. We’ll continue the conversations with China.

Let me read you a little bit about one of the things that Secretary Tillerson said in some meetings in Manila just about a week ago. He said – he talked about China and Russia being helpful on the issue of North Korea. He said, “I know that they are having talks as well with representatives from North Korea. I think that is evidence that they have a very good, open channels of communication to be able to talk with the regime of North Korea, and we hope that they will be encouraging them to stand down their program and abide by UN Security Council resolutions, which both China and Russia have voted for in the past. So I’m hopeful that they will use their influence – and they think they do have influence with the regime – to bring them to the point of dialogue, but with the right expectation of what that dialogue would include.”

So again, these are ongoing conversations, and I don’t want to put a timeline on it. But we’re having a lot of those conversations.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Thanks.

QUESTION: Stay on North Korea.

QUESTION: Could I move on?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: DPRK.

QUESTION: One more on North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hey.

QUESTION: When North Korea spoke yesterday of watching U.S. behavior, they appeared to point specifically to joint U.S.-South Korea military exercises. Is there any consideration of making changes of U.S. behavior in that manner?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So I think what you’re talking about is some sort of a double freeze, as we look at it here. There is no equivalency between what the DPRK has been engaged in – the ICBM missile tests in July, the two of those, the nuclear testing. Compare that to the legal activity that the U.S. and South Korea is engaged with in terms of its military – joint military exercises. Those joint military exercises have taken place for a very long time. They’re carried out in the spirit of the October 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty. They’re carefully monitored by the international community to ensure full compliance with the armistice agreements. So that so-called double freeze, that’s not going to change. We’re allowed to do it. We’re allowed to do it with our ally, South Korea. We will continue to do that and that’s just not going to change.

QUESTION: Well, just because you’re allowed to do it doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the right thing to do in a period of very heightened --

MS NAUERT: There – but there’s – people are --

QUESTION: I understand your --

MS NAUERT: There’s no moral equivalency whatsoever --

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting – I’m not --

MS NAUERT: -- in the U.S. and South Korea doing joint military exercises.

QUESTION: I’m not suggesting that there is.

MS NAUERT: We do these things all around the world – joint military exercises.

QUESTION: Yeah. But I’m not suggesting that there is any equivalence at all, but it gets back to the earlier question, not doing something – in this case, on your side, you don’t think it’s this – you look at it the same way as --

MS NAUERT: These have taken place --

QUESTION: -- the North Koreans not doing --

MS NAUERT: These have taken place since 1953 --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: -- or thereabouts. It is an agreement that we have with the Republic of Korea. We remain open to dialogue with the North Koreans, as you well know. We are willing --

QUESTION: But not on this.

MS NAUERT: No. Not on this. Thank you. Thank you for asking that for clarification – on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. But this – there’s no moral equivalency between our interactions with South Korea and what the DPRK has done. And the international world – the world recognizes what DPRK is doing is unstable, it’s unsafe, and it’s flat-out wrong. Okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Are we done with DPRK? I think we should move on. Okay.

QUESTION: Can I move on?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let me come back to you because we already got a question. Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: Hi, good.

MS NAUERT: Hold on, you’ve got – well, let me go to somebody else, Said.

QUESTION: I did --

MS NAUERT: I don’t want to read about this online. You already asked one question. Okay. (Laughter.) Hold on. Okay. I’m teasing you. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: So North Korea has said that now is not the time to discuss American detainees. Do you have a response to this? And also, do you have an update on their situation?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So we have three Americans who are being held by the DPRK. I know that our Ambassador Yun – Ambassador Joe Yun, when he was there a month or two ago, was able to take a look and meet with our Americans who are being held there. We remain very concerned about their status, about their care. This is another reminder to Americans to not go to the DPRK. It is not safe there, including things that may be considered legal here would not necessarily be considered legal there. So let me just use it as a reminder to please avoid going to North Korea until we get that so-called travel ban in place. When I have updates for you on those Americans who are being held, I’ll be sure to bring them to you, because that is something that we would certainly like to see, our Americans come home.

QUESTION: And then in that Wall Street Journal op-ed that you mentioned that was penned by Secretary Tillerson --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- and Mattis, they said that an indication of good faith would be an immediate cessation of provocatory threats and also a halting of nuclear and missile tests. But what about the returning of American detainees?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think I’m just going to leave it at that – at the point. Okay? Okay. All right. Let’s move on from DPRK.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, you want to talk about what? Iran?

QUESTION: Iran.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: On Sunday, Iran’s parliament passed legislation to increase spending on its ballistic missile program and on the IRGC, which the U.S. has designated a terrorist organization. And today, the Iranian president said Iran’s nuclear program could be restarted within hours and it would be more sophisticated than before if there are more sanctions. What’s your response to all that?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to respond to that threat or that hypothetical from President Rouhani. The Trump administration remains committed to countering a full range of threats that Iran poses, not just to the region but also to the world, including its ballistic missile development.

QUESTION: But they said they’re going to spend more money on its ballistic missile program.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I don’t have the intelligence on that, so I’m just not going to comment on that, but that would be a concern of ours.

QUESTION: Heather?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: The administration has – members of the administration from the President on down have said that they believe that Iran is not – violating – is in violation of the JCPOA in spirit.

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm, the spirit of the JCPOA, yeah.

QUESTION: Have you – do you still – does the administration still believe that they are adhering to the letter of the JCPOA?

MS NAUERT: There’s a full Iran review policy that is still underway, so I don’t want to get ahead of what that review policy is going to be. In terms of where we have stood at this point, the United States has from the IAEA then recertified to Congress, so they know where we stand on that issue. But we still believe that what Iran is doing is destabilizing and that the JCPOA doesn’t fully recognize and comprehend and encompass all those destabilizing activities that Iran is engaged in.

QUESTION: Right, but you also would acknowledge, though, that the previous administration that negotiated the deal never said that it did encompass those things. Now --

MS NAUERT: Correct, correct, and that is why we look at that and see the flaws in the JCPOA --

QUESTION: Right, right. The second --

MS NAUERT: -- that it should be so much more comprehensive.

QUESTION: Where I was – where I was going with the first question was: Does the administration believe that it – meaning the U.S. – is in compliance with the letter and the spirit of the JCPOA?

MS NAUERT: We certainly are. We believe that we are in compliance --

QUESTION: Do you believe that --

MS NAUERT: -- with the JCPOA.

QUESTION: You – your position is that you are not in – you’re not violating the spirit of it by not encouraging European companies or other companies to do business with Iran?

MS NAUERT: I know that we have ongoing conversations with many other countries to discuss this. I know that other countries also share our concerns about what I’ll just broadly call the destabilizing activities. We know what they do in the region. We know what they do to some of our U.S. Navy ships. I mean, that’s just one – one example of some of the things that they do.

QUESTION: So in other words, you – the administration believes that the sanctions relief that it continues to provide to Iran is in keeping with your commitments under the JCPOA?

MS NAUERT: And we continue to have some of these conversations with other nations as well and keep an eye on those things.

QUESTION: No, right. But as far as sanctions relief is concerned, you – the administration believes that it is fully complying with the terms of the agreement?

MS NAUERT: We don’t believe that they are complying with the spirit of the law --

QUESTION: No, you. Do you believe that the United States is fully complying?

MS NAUERT: Oh, are we complying?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Yes, yes, yes, we are complying.

QUESTION: So in terms of sanctions relief, they’re getting everything that they deserve, nothing less?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to characterize it that way. I’m just going to say that the United States is in compliance with its end of the bargain. Okay?

QUESTION: Today, the United Nations secretary-general said that we should not walk away from the JCPOA under any condition. Do you agree with that?

MS NAUERT: It’s not my place to agree or not agree with him.

Okay? Anything else. Okay, all right. Let’s move on to another subject.

QUESTION: India?

MS NAUERT: Who’s got anything else?

QUESTION: Can we move to the Palestinian-Israeli --

MS NAUERT: Okay, Said.

QUESTION: -- peace process or – first of all, could you update us? There is an upcoming visit or a delegation will be going to the region. They will go to the Gulf region then they will go to Israel and Palestine – Mr. Kushner and Mr. Jason Greenblatt. Is the State Department involved in this process?

MS NAUERT: Yes, we are. We are always involved in that process. What you’re referring to is an upcoming trip. I don’t have an --

QUESTION: An upcoming trip, but we don’t know exactly the time --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I don’t have an exact date for you on that. When I do have that, I would be more than happy to provide it to you. There was a statement that was put out – my understanding – from the White House about Mr. Greenblatt’s travel. He will be accompanied by Jared Kushner as well as Dina Powell on this trip, so I know we are looking forward to supporting them as we always do on their constant travels over to that region.

Typically, when they travel to talk about Middle East peace and other issues, we provide backup assistance with them and attend meetings with them. Our ambassador, our charge will also attend those meetings. The State Department helps to set up some of those things, and then upon their return we do a debrief and have conversations about what they learned and where things stand.

So it’s a close cooperating relationship between the State Department and also the White House on this. We recognize it is a big issue. This has failed a lot of past administrations, and we feel that this is a good new effort, a fresh effort to put forward, to have the White House and the State Department working in concert on this.

QUESTION: Today, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that – refuting – I mean he was refuting some Israeli reports suggesting that the PA is walking away from its enthusiasm for the Trump initiative, but he’s saying that the U.S. ought to, as preceding – as its predecessor – this administration, as its predecessors, commit to the two-state solution. Has there been any statement by the State Department, by – to the best of your knowledge – by this White House committing to the two-state solution?

MS NAUERT: One of the things that we have said is that both parties need to be willing and need to be able to agree to something. And if they’re willing to negotiate and agree to that, they are the ones that have to live with that day in and day out, and we will support them in those efforts.

QUESTION: But the whole Oslo process, which the United States is really the shepherd of, is predicated – premised – on the two-state solution, correct?

MS NAUERT: Look, both parties have to be willing to live and to work with this, and we will help support them in that. I think that is ultimately up for those parties to decide.

QUESTION: And I have one last question, I promise --

MS NAUERT: Okay, go right ahead.

QUESTION: -- on this issue. Yesterday – or today, the daughter of the American ambassador to Israel, Talia, immigrated to Israel, and she’s – presumably will be joining the Israeli army. Is that a good practice for the American ambassador to have his daughter join the Israeli army there that is perceived as an occupation army?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware – this report is news to me. I’m not aware of that report, but I’ll certainly look into it. I’m not sure we would have a comment on it, but I can certainly look into it.

Okay, what else do we have today?

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Can you go to --

MS NAUERT: We done?

QUESTION: -- Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: Thank you. How are you?

So a delegation of the Kurdistan Regional Government went to Baghdad yesterday to start a negotiation on a possible breakup from Iraq. Would the United --

MS NAUERT: On a possible what? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Breakup from Iraq or declaration of independence. So would the United States support these negotiations between Erbil and Baghdad?

MS NAUERT: I mean, certainly if Erbil and Baghdad want to sit down and have a conversation with one another, that is certainly fine. As you know, we have expressed very serious concerns about holding a referendum, even a referendum that’s considered to be an unbinding referendum. What we would like to see is a stable, secure, and unified Iraq.

As we talk about the referendum that the Kurds want to hold in September – late September, I believe it is – we look at that and say we understand what you’re going for, we understand what the goal is, but let’s not take our eye off the ball. Let’s not take our eye off of ISIS. And ISIS is the major serious threat in Iraq right now, and we’re concerned about a referendum at this time that that referendum would be further destabilizing.

QUESTION: According to the KRG presidency’s website, Mr. – in the phone call between Mr. Tillerson and Barzani, Mr. Tillerson encouraged Erbil to negotiate with Baghdad. Do you – is that the case? What else did Mr. Tillerson think --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have a readout of that conversation.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay. All right. Yeah.

QUESTION: Just for clarification --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- your objection is to the timing of the referendum --

MS NAUERT: We’ve talked about that. Yeah. I think I’ve been clear about the concerns related to the timing of the referendum.

QUESTION: But it’s not about the referendum itself. It’s the timing?

MS NAUERT: And ultimately this is going to have to be worked out with the Iraqi people, but I just want to be clear, ISIS is the main fight that Iraqis have been fought – fighting for years now, hoping to get people back into western Mosul as they’ve started to come back in. There are operations taking place up in the north in Tal Afar. We haven’t talked about that a whole lot, but there are a lot of concerning activities on the part of trying to get ISIS out of Iraq. And we see that as the sole focus where we need to stay – where we need to keep the eye on the ball. Okay.

QUESTION: I have one question on India.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yes.

QUESTION: Did the Secretary spoke to the Indian External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj today? Do you have a readout of it?

MS NAUERT: I believe – you know what? I’d have to double-check on that. I’d have to double-check on that schedule. I know that we’re celebrating a couple independence days; yesterday with Pakistan and today with India. So I know we’ve put out some comments on that.

QUESTION: And also there was announcement about a 2+2 meeting between – meeting between India and U.S. – ministerial meeting. Do you know what’s the time and venue for that?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any information on that to give you at this point. I’m not aware of any scheduling yet.

QUESTION: I have one more on Afghanistan.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Have you seen the open letter by the Taliban to President Trump asking him to withdraw from Afghanistan?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I certainly have. So I’m not going to comment on any statements put out by the Taliban on that. Let’s not lose focus here, that the – what I’ll – I’ll say this about another country: destabilizing activities. What is going on in Afghanistan is a result of the Taliban. We’ve seen, and there was a report out not that long ago, about the increase in attacks on civilians, which largely included women and children. That is being perpetrated by members of the Taliban. Let’s not lose focus that the Taliban is behind many of those attacks, many of the increase in civilian casualties. That undermines the Afghan population and also the Afghan Government as well, so let’s not lose focus of that.

I’ve got to leave it there, you guys.

QUESTION: Withdrawal from Afghanistan is not an option at all?

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Withdrawal from Afghanistan is no option --

MS NAUERT: That’s not my position. I know that – that is not my place to talk about that whatsoever. I know there are a lot of various options on the table that the U.S. Government is considering as it reviews its Afghan policy. I think it – they will be considering a lot of different options and would never rule out any – absolutely everything. Okay?

QUESTION: Do you have any updated guidance on the situation with India and China?

MS NAUERT: Just that we are encouraging both parties to sit down and have direct dialogue.

QUESTION: There was another round of skirmish and (inaudible) from India and China --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. What?

QUESTION: There was another round of tension --

QUESTION: There was an actual skirmish, I think, today, earlier.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

QUESTION: If you can update us on that, please?

MS NAUERT: If I have anything new for you, I will be certain to get it for you. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Thanks, everybody. Good to see you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:26 p.m.)

DPB # 44

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 - August 9, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





August 9, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA



CUBA



NORTH KOREA/REGION



IRAN



SYRIA/IRAQ/IRAN



SOUTH CHINA SEA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



RUSSIA



NORTH KOREA/REGION


TRANSCRIPT:

2:35 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS NAUERT: Hi, everybody. Welcome back. Hope you’re all having a good week. A lot of stuff going on today, certainly.

I want to talk – start talking about something that’s taking place in Togo this afternoon, and that is a trip that’s been taking place by the U.S. Trade Representative. Today, the U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Togolese Prime Minister Komi Klassou welcomed the participants of the 2017 U.S.-Sub-Saharan African Trade and Economic Cooperation Forum in Togo. The annual forum brings together trade ministers from 38 African nations with U.S. counterparts and participants from the private sector, and also civil society. They intend to lay the foundation for mutual prosperity between nations of Africa and also the United States. We’re focused on building a more robust and reciprocal U.S.-Sub-Saharan Africa trade relationship. The United States is working with our African partners at the forum to deepen free, fair, and reciprocal trade. So we welcome them all there, and we are pleased to take part in that.

And that’s all I have.

QUESTION: Togo, huh?

MS NAUERT: In Togo, yes. Important to talk about trade. So with that, I will take your questions. I know we have a lot.

QUESTION: With that – (laughter.)

MS NAUERT: Would you like to start, Matt?

QUESTION: Yes. Please. (Laughter.) Understanding the importance of Togo and AGOA in general --

MS NAUERT: You turn around and you say that to the folks from Togo. They think it’s important. Our folks are there.

QUESTION: I’m saying it is important.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I’m not taking away from the importance of Togo. I would like to ask about something else.

MS NAUERT: Yes, sir. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yes. I’ll let you guess what it is. North Korea. Can you explain to the American public and perhaps the rest of the world exactly who they should be listening to in the U.S. Government when it comes to North Korea and what the United States policy and posture is?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think the United States – and some of you may disagree with this, but the United States is on the same page. Whether it’s the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, we are speaking with one voice. And the world is, in fact, speaking with one voice, and we saw that as it came out of the UN Security Council with the resolution that passed less than a week ago. The United States, along with other nations, condemned North Korea for their destabilizing activities. They’ve continued to take part of that; two ICBM launches in less than a month’s period of time. The world remains very concerned about that.

QUESTION: Okay. But you don’t think that the President’s comments are at odds with those of the secretaries and other officials, or is this kind of a good cop, bad cop routine that we’re seeing here, trying to coax the maximum you can get out of the North Korean Government?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think we’ve talked about our pressure campaign, the United States pressure campaign that’s backed by many other nations. And we see that pressure campaign, which is a long-term campaign, but that campaign is working. It is ratcheting up the pressure on North Korea. The President spoke about this yesterday; Secretary Tillerson spoke about this by plane back to the United States earlier today. And the Secretary spoke about the President’s words – I think that is what you’re referring to – and he said this: Look, the President is sending a strong message to North Korea in the kind of language that North Korea understands. The Secretary has talked in the past about how the President is a very effective spokesman. People listen to him, and those were the President’s words, sending a message loud and clear to North Korea.

QUESTION: So does that mean – and this is my last one --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- does that mean that you have come to the determination that you – the only way to get through to Kim Jong-un is with the same kind of bombastic rhetoric that he uses?

MS NAUERT: There are lots of ways, we believe, to get through to Kim Jong-un and his regime, okay. And our issue is not with the people of the DPRK; it is with the regime itself. And that message has been strongly sent throughout this administration. When the President and Secretary Mattis and Secretary Tillerson agreed that the top security issue for the United States would, in fact, be – well, the safety and security of Americans first, of course, but would, in fact, be DPRK and the destabilizing activities, its illegal nuclear and ballistics weapons programs that continue to take place.

Okay? I assume you have more questions about this. Rich Edson. Hi, Rich.

QUESTION: Thanks, Heather. So in the President’s remarks and then in the Secretary’s comments about the President’s remarks, saying that it was the kind of language that North Korea would understand and almost in a way diplomatic speak, is that something – is that an approach that the State Department was involved in that the President took yesterday?

MS NAUERT: The State Department and the President, the Secretary and the President, have ongoing conversations. They spoke earlier today. This pressure campaign with North Korea is something that we are all in agreement on, folks in the U.S. Government are all in agreement on. So nothing has changed in that regard.

QUESTION: Sorry, can you just extrapolate? The President and the Secretary spoke today?

MS NAUERT: They did, mm-hmm.

QUESTION: This is when he was in Guam or on the plane or --

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure where exactly. In transit, though, as he is on his way back to the United States is my understanding. Exactly at what point or at what time, I’m just not sure.

QUESTION: Can you clarify – earlier today, in which time zone?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry. That’s a good question, Andrea. It happened – let me get back to you on the time of that.

QUESTION: Like, I mean, but it happened while he was en route back to --

MS NAUERT: I believe it was --

QUESTION: It wasn’t like last week or anything?

MS NAUERT: I believe it was on – no, no, no, no, no. It was --

QUESTION: We’re talking about --

MS NAUERT: It was within the last 24 hours.

QUESTION: And do you have any idea how long it was?

MS NAUERT: They spoke for about an hour.

QUESTION: Okay. So that means two calls in the last – since Monday?

MS NAUERT: I --

QUESTION: Correct?

MS NAUERT: I’d have to check with you on the first call that you’re referring to. I’m not certain of that. I don’t want to call that.

QUESTION: White House announced a call of an hour with Secretary – with General Kelly and the President and the Secretary on Monday morning.

QUESTION: Monday.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Monday morning East Coast time.

QUESTION: Okay. Right.

MS NAUERT: There you go.

QUESTION: But I mean, so – okay, so we have two calls now. All right.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Andrea, hi.

QUESTION: Hi. Could I follow up? The Secretary’s call was, though, well after the “fire and fury” language. Senator McCain and others – Republicans and Democrats – have complained that it was, quote, “bombastic” in Senator Feinstein’s view, “not helpful” said Senator McCain, that no other president – not Eisenhower, not Reagan – no other president that he knew of would have used such language. And the implication from all of the critics is that the President’s language implied the use of nuclear force. Is that the way the Secretary read it? And did the Secretary have any early warning from his earlier phone call that this was going to happen? Or did he only speak to the President in the aftermath of it?

MS NAUERT: He spoke to the President after the fact, after the President made his announcement. As people look at this, and some consider comments to have been alarming, I would have to go back to this: Let’s consider what is alarming. What is alarming: two ICBM tests in less than a month, two nuclear tests that took place last year. As a matter of fact, when there’s an earthquake in China, I get many emails and calls from all of you asking, “Was it another nuclear test?” That is how big of a deal this is, what is going on.

QUESTION: But --

MS NAUERT: Let me – let --

QUESTION: Let me just follow up.

MS NAUERT: Let me finish. Okay, please.

QUESTION: Sure.

MS NAUERT: That it is a big deal what is going on; it is a concern to the world, not just the United States. Those are alarming actions. They are provocative actions on the part of North Korea.

QUESTION: My question is: Given those provocations from North Korea, which has been belligerent in the extreme – granted, stipulated – is it helpful or unhelpful for the President to use the kind of language that we have seen previously coming from Kim Jong-un, not from presidents of the United States?

MS NAUERT: Look.

QUESTION: Is he exacerbating the problem?

MS NAUERT: The President spoke to him, to Kim Jong-un, in a language that Secretary Tillerson has said – and said this morning – in the kind of language that Kim Jong-un will understand. We would like to see results. The pressure campaign – we see that working. The international community is in agreement with the United States and many of our partners and allies on putting additional pressure on North Korea. The Secretary happens to be coming back from the ASEAN conference, where they had tremendous success. It was a good week for diplomacy. I know you all want to obsess over statements and all of that, and try to – want to make a lot of noise out of that, but what is important to keep in mind is that this diplomatic pressure at ASEAN, at the meeting of the 10 Asian nations along with the United States, came to a joint agreement and a joint statement and put out a very strong condemnation of North Korea. We are all singing from the same hymn book.

QUESTION: A lot of us have reported on the success of that effort at the UN and in ensuing days. That doesn’t take away from that question: the lack of a national security interagency process – in this instance with a presidential statement – that has perhaps undercut the previous success.

MS NAUERT: I don’t know that I would agree with you on that.

Okay, next question.

QUESTION: So by saying that – by walking away from saying all options on the table, which has been really the traditional kind of response in the past, is that a new kind of policy? It used to be that the United States would say we have the privilege or the right to use whatever options available to us, including, presumably, aggressive military action.

MS NAUERT: We’ve had a few statements that have come out today. Secretary Mattis addressed this very issue in a pretty strong statement that he issued earlier today. I’ll just read a little bit of it to you in case you have missed it. “The United States and our allies have demonstrated capabilities and unquestionable commitment to defend ourselves from an attack. Kim Jong-un should take heed of the UN Security Council’s unified voice, and statements from governments the world over who agree the DPRK poses a threat to the global security and stability. The DPRK must choose to stop isolating itself and stand down its pursuit of nuclear weapons, and it goes on. I think the United States is all – talking with one voice.

QUESTION: Can I just take issue --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- with the – your choice of the word “obsess”? I mean, we’re not obsessing about this. This is the President of the United States threatening a nuclear-armed country, whether you want to accept it or not, a country that is armed with nuclear weapons, with fire and fury the likes of which the world has never seen. I don’t think that it’s obsessing to want to know what the – to have a further clarification of exactly what that means and whether or not it means that you’re preparing to send fire and fury raining down on the North Korean regime.

MS NAUERT: And I’ll let the President’s statement stand for itself.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay?

QUESTION: But, I mean, it’s not obsessing to want to know more about what that means.

MS NAUERT: You know what? I see a packed room of journalists here, and normally there aren’t half as many as there are here today. So that shows a greater indication of your level of interest.

QUESTION: Oh, Heather, they’re all here for you, not the --

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) They’re here for you, Matt Lee. Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Hi. And sir, your name is?

QUESTION: Yeah, Steve Dorsey from CBS News.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Steve.

QUESTION: Hi. Just a quick change in topic.

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Can you tell us about the incidents that have been going on in Havana affecting U.S. Government workers there?

MS NAUERT: Yes. So we are certainly aware of what has happened there. Give me one second here. And that’s why we got a little bit of a late start getting some recent updates for you on this.

So some U.S. Government personnel who were working at our embassy in Havana, Cuba on official duties – so they were there working on behalf of the U.S. embassy there – they’ve reported some incidents which have caused a variety of physical symptoms. I’m not going to be able to give you a ton of information about this today, but I’ll tell you what we do have that we can provide so far.

We don’t have any definitive answers about the source or the cause of what we consider to be incidents. We can tell you that on May 23rd, the State Department took further action. We asked two officials who were accredited at the Embassy of Cuba in the United States to depart the United States. Those two individuals have departed the United States. We take this situation very seriously. One of the things we talk about here often is that the safety and security of American citizens at home and abroad is our top priority. We’re taking that situation seriously and it’s under investigation right now.

QUESTION: If the U.S. doesn’t have a definitive answer on the cause or source of the incidents, why did it ask those two Cuban embassy officials to depart the U.S.?

MS NAUERT: Look, our – some of our people have had the option of leaving Cuba as a result for medical reasons.

QUESTION: And how many?

MS NAUERT: I can’t tell you the exact number of that, but I can --

QUESTION: But was it in the tens, dozens?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to characterize it. I do not believe it was that large, certainly not that large, but we had to bring some Americans home or some Americans chose to go home – come home as a result of that. And as a result of that, we’ve asked two Cubans to leave the United States and they have.

QUESTION: In other words, this is a reciprocity thing, right? You’re --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to call it as such, but we asked two people to go home.

QUESTION: And how long has this been going on for?

MS NAUERT: So we first heard about these incidents back in late 2016.

QUESTION: And who is leading the investigation?

MS NAUERT: The U.S. Government is investigating this. I’m just – I’m not going to get into it prior to that.

QUESTION: What agency?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to – going to get into it. You know which law enforcement agencies we have that would be concerned about this. The State Department is involved, but you could check with others as well.

QUESTION: And just real quickly, was it just State Department employees or other employees from other government agencies?

MS NAUERT: So these were – my understanding is that it has only affected State Department employees. This has not affected any private U.S. citizens down there. We take this very seriously. Look --

QUESTION: What is “this?”

MS NAUERT: This incident. This incident.

QUESTION: But what is the incident?

MS NAUERT: And that’s what – and that’s what we’re calling it. We don’t know exactly what --

QUESTION: This has been going on since 2016 and you don’t know what this incident is?

MS NAUERT: What this requires is providing medical examinations to these people. Initially, when they started reporting what I will just call symptoms, it took time to figure out what it was, and this is still ongoing. So we’re monitoring it. We provide medical care and concern to those who believe that they have been affected by it, and we take this extremely seriously.

QUESTION: So do you – just getting back to my question on reciprocity, and I know you don’t want to use the word, but is it – did you – did – were the two Cubans told or asked to leave because of a similar or proportional drawdown in the U.S. staff in Havana because of these symptoms?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to characterize it that way at all. I can just – I can only tell you the two were asked to leave and they did.

QUESTION: Yeah, but you’re --

MS NAUERT: Because what you’re trying to do is you’re trying to draw an equivalency. You’re trying to say two guys were asked to go home and therefore X number of Americans were brought home, and I’m not – just not going to make that comparison.

QUESTION: But actually I’m – well, I’m not saying there’s a direct proportion, although maybe the Russians might disagree on that. But the reason that the two left is because you had to reduce your staff, or have the people who left Havana been replaced?

MS NAUERT: Some – I’m not sure if our people who have left Havana have been replaced. I know that we’ve given our employees there a chance to come home if they would like to, and they have jobs here.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Let me just mention one other thing about this. The Cuban Government has a responsibility and an obligation under the Geneva[1] Convention to protect our diplomats, so that is part of the reason why this is such a major concern of ours, why we take this so seriously, and in addition to the protection and security of Americans. I hope I’ve answered your question.

QUESTION: Can I have – question on Syria?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Any – hold on. Anything else on Cuba?

QUESTION: Can you just give us a sense of are these medical problems ongoing or was this a short-term thing?

MS NAUERT: And you’ve heard me say this here before: When we talk about medical issues about Americans, we don’t get into it. So I can just tell you that it was – it is a cause of great concern for us, it’s caused a variety of physical symptoms in these American citizens who work for the U.S. Government. We take those incidents very seriously and there is an investigation currently underway.

QUESTION: I mean, can you say are they life-threatening? I mean, the physical symptom is – wasn’t death, was it?

MS NAUERT: No, it was not. It was not, not life --

QUESTION: And – but not life-threatening?

MS NAUERT: Not life-threatening, and I’ll leave it at that. Anything else on Cuba?

QUESTION: Can we go back to North Korea?

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Cuba?

QUESTION: On North Korea?

MS NAUERT: We’re done with Cuba, correct? Okay. Let’s go to North Korea. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi. North Korea reportedly released Canadian pastor Hyeon Soo Lim after two and a half years in detention, and so do you have a response? And then on the American detainees that are still in North Korea, what are the status of negotiations to release them?

MS NAUERT: I’m glad you asked about that. I had mentioned just a short while ago regarding Cuba that the safety and security of Americans is our top issue and top concern. As you know, we now have a travel ban that takes effect, I believe, it’s September 1 for Americans who would wish to travel to North Korea. We continue to have a travel warning, and I just say this because it’s a good opportunity to remind people we have a travel warning regarding North Korea to anyone who should attempt to go there right now.

Putting all of that aside, we know that there are three Americans who are being held in North Korea. Our Ambassador Yun was over there back in June and that is when he was able to bring home Otto Warmbier, as you all well recall. At that time, he was able to meet with and put eyes on our Americans who are being held over there, who are being detained over there. I don’t have any updates for you on their status. We work through our protecting power, Sweden, to gain access to Americans who are being held over there, and I just know it’s an ongoing – obviously, an ongoing area of major, major concern to us. Okay.

QUESTION: Have there been any contacts since Ambassador Yun’s visit?

MS NAUERT: Not that I’m aware of. Okay.

QUESTION: Can we stay in Korea?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything – let’s stay with – hold on, let’s stay with DPRK before we move on. Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: Thank you. I just want to go back to the Mattis statement that you brought up. So in the last sentence, it says that the regime would lose any arms race or conflict it initiates. Does that mean first strike is off the table now?

MS NAUERT: That would – I think that would be a DOD question.

QUESTION: And then just one more.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: As far as a South Korean ambassador, still one has not even been nominated. There are certainly rumors, but you would think amongst all this diplomatic talk that an ambassador would help. So is there any updates as far as a nomination?

MS NAUERT: So a nomination would have to come out of the White House because it’s – the President has that right to be able to nominate someone. So I’d have to refer you to the White House on that. I can, however, tell you that we have a charge d’affaires who’s currently serving there. Mark Knapper is his name. He’s a senior Foreign Service officer. He has a ton of experience in Korea. He’s served at the embassy in Seoul since 2015. He has served other tours of duty in Korea as well at our embassy in Seoul. I’ve talked to people around the building about him. They love him. They say he is fantastic. I haven’t had the opportunity to meet him or speak with him yet, but he’s on the ground, and so I’m confident that it is in good, solid hands until the President nominates somebody for that position.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Forgive me for not knowing this, but is the ambassador to Japan who was confirmed and sworn in --

MS NAUERT: Bill Hagerty, Ambassador Hagerty.

QUESTION: Is he there? He’s in Tokyo now?

MS NAUERT: I believe he is. He was sworn in – confirmed, sworn in. I believe he’s there now. We can double-check and get that, but – and I’m not sure where he is at this moment today, but --

QUESTION: No, no, no, I mean is he is in --

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that he is on the job, but we’ll check and get that to you before the end of this briefing.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Can I change topics, please?

MS NAUERT: Hi, are – wait, let’s finish up with DPRK. Anything else on that?

QUESTION: Korea.

QUESTION: One more.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: There’s a term coined by the South Korean media, which is “Korea passing,” and --

MS NAUERT: Which is what?

QUESTION: “Korea passing” --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- which reflects concerns that the U.S. is bypassing South Korea in dealing with North Korea by mainly talking to China, Russia, Japan. So these are actually concerns that have persisted, and I just wanted to ask what the State Department’s response to those concerns would be, especially given that South Koreans would be the biggest victims if there were to be a conflict on the peninsula.

MS NAUERT: As you know, we have a very good and strong relationship with the Republic of Korea. Secretary Tillerson just met with Foreign Minister Kang a few days ago in a bilat on the margins of the ASEAN Regional Forum. Our nation and the Republic of Korea have a very strong relationship. That is something that has not changed. We are alliance partners; that has not changed. We have constant dialogue. I know Foreign Minister Kang was here maybe about a month or so ago sitting down with Secretary Tillerson and had a very good conversation. Those conversations are ongoing.

Okay, anything else on DPRK? Up here. Sir, hi.

QUESTION: Thank you. I believe you characterize it as a pressure campaign --

MS NAUERT: Pressure campaign, yes.

QUESTION: Pressure campaign, which means also that all options are on the table, and I’m assuming that also means diplomatic pressure as well.

MS NAUERT: Well, that’s why we’re here at the State Department.

QUESTION: Yes, exactly.

MS NAUERT: So we focus on that diplomatic pressure, yes.

QUESTION: I’d like to bring up two dimensions to that, and I wonder if you can elaborate. The first one is that the United Kingdom has never really signed the UN treaty banning nuclear weapons, and the United States has been a strong proponent of making sure that nuclear weapons are confined. Having said that, also, the pressure tactics or the pressure campaign, as you say – it makes the JCPO that much more important – the nuclear deal with Iran, that is. Now, does this mean --

MS NAUERT: Well, let me first clear up if there’s a misperception here about what the pressure campaign is, and to our folks who are here all the time, I’m sorry if we’ve been over this a few times again. But what that pressure campaign includes – and we saw some success at ASEAN over in Asia over the past few days – that pressure campaign consists of talking with nations around the world, asking them to do more to put pressure on North Korea. And one of the ways that those nations are putting pressure on North Korea is by kicking out their diplomats, in some instances; shrinking the size of business operations, sometimes kicking them out altogether. That will basically remove some of the funding that North Korea gets and that they funnel into their illegal weapons programs.

So by starving them, if you will, of that money, that puts pressure on North Korea, and we’re having a lot of success with that. Australia, the Republic of Korea – miss, you were asking me earlier about the Republic of Korea and our relationship, our strong relationship with them – they took steps. Japan took steps. We’ve seen lots of countries take steps to institute either their own sanctions or to use our campaign as a jumping-off point. So that’s what I mean by “pressure campaign.” I just want to make sure you have a good understanding of that.

QUESTION: I appreciate it, yes, again. My question really concerning the JCPO, the entire nuclear deal with Iran.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: The administration has been clear about trying to renegotiate the nuclear deal. Is this still the perception or is this still the position of the United States, that it ought to be scrapped in view of the North Korean --

MS NAUERT: We have not – we have not said that. We have not said that. We believe that Iran is in default of the spirit of the agreement. The agreement calls for – to contribute to international peace and security. We believe that the deal has not contributed to that kind of international peace and security. In terms of the overall JCPOA, as I’m sure you’re aware, there are some gaps in that, and that is a concern of ours because it does not take into account the destabilizing activities of Iran. And when I talk about destabilizing activities, I mean all of the work that they are doing in that region of the world to cause additional unrest, killings, attacks, and things of this nature.

QUESTION: It’s a multilateral agreement; it’s not a bilateral.

MS NAUERT: Sir, I’m not going to get into debate you – something that – I know a lot of people have a lot of other questions. If you want to talk about that more another time, I’m certainly happy to.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: Can we move on?

QUESTION: Iran?

QUESTION: China?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Sorry, go ahead, go ahead. Iraq.

QUESTION: Yeah. On Iraq and Iran --

MS NAUERT: And by the way, may I say it’s great to see you back.

QUESTION: Oh, thank you very much.

MS NAUERT: I know you were out for a while and not feeling too well. You look well – well, you look well-rested.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Well, thank you. An Iraqi Shia militia claimed that the U.S. attacked it on the border – it was on the border with Iraq and Syria, and that it killed dozens of its fighters, as well as seven Iranian Revolutionary Guards, including a commander. And then ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack and the U.S. has denied it – the Pentagon at least.

Can you explain to us what happened there?

MS NAUERT: So we don’t know exactly what happened there, but I can tell you this: The reports that you reference are false. The United States had nothing to do with this. The United States coalition did not conduct any strikes in that area on the date and that time of the alleged attack. ISIS we know claimed responsibility for that attack, and we had nothing to do with it. The assertion that the coalition is conducting operations with ISIS is simply preposterous. And I hope that answers the question.

QUESTION: So part of this is an implication that you are saying is false, but the implication is somehow coordination between the U.S. and ISIS?

MS NAUERT: Is without a doubt false. ISIS is the enemy of the United States and the enemy of the world.

QUESTION: Sometimes the Iranians try and suggest that.

MS NAUERT: Excuse me?

QUESTION: Sometimes the Iranians try to suggest that.

MS NAUERT: Suggest what?

QUESTION: That the United States is collaborating with ISIS.

MS NAUERT: If you want to go ahead and believe the Iranian Government --

QUESTION: I don’t.

MS NAUERT: -- you go right ahead, but the United States and ISIS have nothing to do with one another other than that they are a target of ours.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Heather, can we move to --

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Miss, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Before Secretary Tillerson’s trip to ASEAN, Assistant Secretary Susan Thornton said South China Sea is also a topic. I wonder since the framework of the code of conduct of South China Sea has adopted and also finalized, what’s your latest assessment of this framework?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let me just give you a little bit of information on that. Today I’ve sort of been steeped in DPRK, so forgive me if I’m not answering your entire question here. I can certainly get back with you about that.

You bring up the issue of the South China Sea. That was another major issue that was talked about at the ASEAN forum. So the ASEAN foreign ministers’ joint communique, which came out at the end of the forum, contains language on the South China Sea, and that reflects ASEAN’s important role in strengthening the rules-based order that benefits all nations both large and small. We welcome the ministers’ reaffirmation of the importance of freedom of navigation. We share their concerns over developments that we consider to be unconducive to regional stability, such as land reclamation. ASEAN also stressed the importance of exercising self-restraint, including refraining from militarization of features in the South China Sea. The communique also emphasized the peaceful resolution of disputes, including full respect for legal and diplomatic processes, such as the July 2016 decision of the tribunal, which is binding on China and the Philippines as provided in – and I want to just get the language right, so bear with me here – as is provided in the Law of the Sea Convention. ASEAN was under tremendous pressure, but still held on to its principles.

Okay? Anything beyond that, I can get you later.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Can we – can we move on, please? Thank you. Can we go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue for a second?

MS NAUERT: We can certainly try.

QUESTION: Yeah. Human Rights Watch issued a report saying that the Israelis stripping Jerusalemites of their residency is tantamount to a war crime. I wonder if you’ve read the report and if you are aware of the – of all that governs such a forced evection, if it happened.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So Said, nice to see you. You know I always call on you.

QUESTION: I know you do.

MS NAUERT: I know, yes. Seems that when I – when you haven’t been called on in the past, you’ve chosen to vent that in public.

QUESTION: Well, okay.

MS NAUERT: Our reporters typically don’t do that.

QUESTION: That’s okay.

MS NAUERT: And I want to point out that I’m calling you – on you again today.

QUESTION: I did not vent in public. (Laughter.) That’s all right, yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay, thank you for asking that question. I’ve certainly seen those reports. We’ve seen those reports and are aware of them. On this, as any judicial case, I’m not going to weigh on that in particular from the podium. I just have to refer you to the Government of Israel for specifics about those cases.

QUESTION: But you do have a position, if this happens, if the – if stripping 15,000 Jerusalemites of their right to reside in their own hometown and forcing them out – that would be tantamount to forced displacement, correct?

MS NAUERT: I would just have to say we’re aware of that report. We’ll continue to monitor that, but I’m not going to weigh in on every case from here.

QUESTION: Okay. And one last follow-up: The king of Jordan, who is a great friend of the United States, an ally, was just in Ramallah meeting with the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, and they called on the Trump administration to state publicly that it is for a two-state solution. Do you have any comment on that?

MS NAUERT: I do not, no.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: You don’t have any comment on --

MS NAUERT: On what the king of Jordan called for, I don’t --

QUESTION: Right, but does that – but is the administration in favor of a two-state solution?

MS NAUERT: I’m just not going to weigh in – I’m just not going to weigh in on every world leader and what he or she has said about any particular situation. As a general matter, as I’m sure you know and we’ve talked about this here before, regarding a two-state solution, the President has talked about this very clearly. He’s made this a high priority and that Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt have done a lot of travel over the region to talk about these types of issues, and we have long said that what – at least in this administration, that whatever solution both parties can agree to, they both have to be willing to live with and adhere to.

QUESTION: Okay. That’s all the question was --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: -- asking – looking for that kind of an answer. But the king of Jordan isn’t just like some guy.

MS NAUERT: Of course not, no.

QUESTION: He is – (laughter) --

MS NAUERT: He’s a very valuable – a very valuable partner and friend.

QUESTION: Well, when you say you’re not going to respond to every – every leader, I mean --

MS NAUERT: Well, no, I want to make that clear as a set of principles here. And you all know this, that there are lots of people around the world, some of our – some are friends, others we don’t have as great of relationships with, but I’m not going to comment on everything that everybody says, okay?

Yes.

QUESTION: I have a question on India --

QUESTION: On Russia.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: On Russia, Secretary Rex --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, your name is?

QUESTION: My name’s Shirley Wei from China Central Television.

MS NAUERT: Okay, hi.

QUESTION: Secretary Rex Tillerson said he’s going to respond to Russia expelled U.S. diplomats by September 1st. Why United States set this time, date, deadline to respond? And does that mean United States waiting for Russia to change in attitudes, or will this action or respond will save U.S.-Russia relationship?

MS NAUERT: We have talked about this a lot here as well, and that is the U.S. relationship with Russia is certainly at a low point. That is no surprise to anybody who sits in this room and comes here often. The Secretary had a meeting with his counterpart, with Foreign Minister Lavrov, overseas on this last trip. That low level of trust still exists. The Secretary, after the meeting with Mr. Lavrov – which took place in Manila, by the way – agreed that they should continue to find places of agreement where our two nations can work together. One of the places where we can work together is in southwest Syria in a ceasefire. That may not seem like a lot to some folks around here, but it’s an area in which we can work together, try to build trust, and try to find areas of mutual cooperation. In the areas where we do not see eye to eye, the United States will continue to advocate for its principles and its policies with Russia and, frankly, the rest of the world.

In terms of the expulsions of our U.S. diplomats and other citizens who are working over there at our embassy, we consider that to be a regrettable step. We’ve been very clear about that. Limiting our diplomatic presence there calls into question Russia’s seriousness about trying to create a better relationship with the United States. We would like to pursue better relations. You know that. We’ve had the channel with our Under Secretary Tom Shannon and his counterpart as well. We would like to have a better relationship with that country, but there’s a lot of suspicion on the part of – certainly of Americans.

Okay? All right.

QUESTION: So she asked about the September 1 deadline.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Isn’t that the deadline that the Russians gave you to reduce your staff? So that’s --

MS NAUERT: Look, that is a number that that nation threw out there, and the Secretary said we’ll have a response by that time.

QUESTION: Right, but that’s the reason that he said – he said you’d have a response by September 1st --

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: -- because that is when the Russians said you had to, right?

MS NAUERT: I’m aware of that, yes.

QUESTION: No, no, I just want to make sure that that is correct, and that --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, he had said that --

QUESTION: -- he didn’t pick it arbitrarily as --

MS NAUERT: I don’t believe that that was picked arbitrarily, okay? Anything else on Russia?

QUESTION: On India?

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Russia?

QUESTION: India.

MS NAUERT: Russia, Russia, Russia? Nothing. Okay, I guess we’re done then today.

QUESTION: India.

MS NAUERT: All right.

QUESTION: India.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: India.

MS NAUERT: Oh.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Are you Goyal?

QUESTION: Yes, sir – yes, madam.

MS NAUERT: Oh, Goyal.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: You’re in trouble with me – (laughter) – okay? Misstating some things that we talked about here at the podium, but go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, madam. My question is before going to India, can I have – can I go back on the sanctions, please, quickly?

MS NAUERT: Sanctions on which?

QUESTION: UN – UN sanctions on North Korea.

MS NAUERT: On North Korea, yes.

QUESTION: Of course, Ambassador Nikki --

MS NAUERT: We’ve been doing too much skipping around from region to region today. Let’s try to – let’s try to --

QUESTION: Of course --

MS NAUERT: Okay, get all our DPRK questions out of the way, move on to other places instead of jumping all around, okay? And this is going to be the final question. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yes, madam. Thank you. Of course, Ambassador Nikki Haley did a great job by bringing all the 15 members of the UN Security Councils on sanctions, but how much can we trust China, because some experts are saying, including on the television even the security and from the Pentagon, that North Korea is baby of China and it’s – it will be difficult by China to impose or enforce all these sanctions against North Korea.

MS NAUERT: So here’s what I’ll say to that: China and Russia as well went along with the UN Security Council resolutions. China has said that it will adhere to implying – excuse me, to enforcing rather, those sanctions. And so we look forward to China keeping its commitment on that, and I’ll leave it at that. Thanks, everybody. Great to see you all.

QUESTION: Can you just talk about one thing --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: When you said in – on North Korea you said everyone’s singing from the same hymn book --

MS NAUERT: Mm-hmm.

QUESTION: Well, can you assure us that they’re all singing the same hymn because – (laughter) – some hymn books are pretty big and the hymns can have very different --

QUESTION: Tones.

QUESTION: -- interpretations and tones --

MS NAUERT: I appreciate – I appreciate your point.

QUESTION: Are they singing the same hymn?

MS NAUERT: The facts stay the same --

QUESTION: Or are they out of tune?

MS NAUERT: -- that the United – the United States and the other countries are first and foremost concerned about North Korea and the threat that it poses right now.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Thanks, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:11 p.m.)

Vienna

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.