U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 6

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - July 20, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





July 20, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

UKRAINE



UKRAINE/RUSSIA/DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SYRIA/REGION



NORTH KOREA/SOUTH KOREA/JAPAN/REGION



POLAND



EGYPT



INDIA/CHINA/REGION



TURKEY/GERMANY


TRANSCRIPT:

2:20 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi, everyone.

QUESTION: Hello.

MS NAUERT: Good to see you all today.

QUESTION: Is it?

MS NAUERT: It is. It’s always good to see you. I do enjoy this.

QUESTION: Let’s see how long that lasts.

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) All right. Ask me in a few weeks.

QUESTION: How about a couple minutes?

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Hey, now. Okay. I got a couple things I want to start out with today, and – one second. You know what I don’t have? I don’t have our news on our top thing we’re talking about.

QUESTION: No topper?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have a topper. Give me just a second, everybody. Sorry about that.

QUESTION: Show tunes?

MS NAUERT: You don’t want to hear me sing and dance. How’s everybody? Good? Good. Sorry about this.

QUESTION: Can you do the second thing first?

MS NAUERT: What’s the second thing first? Questions?

QUESTION: I don’t know.

MS NAUERT: We don’t have any guests today. I have that to announce. Hey, I mean you, but you’re our regulars. You’re our peeps. Thank you so much. Sorry about that. Okay. Ah, Ukraine.

So I have one announcement at the top, and you’ve probably followed some of the news coming out of Ukraine recently. The United States says it wants to condemn the latest violence in eastern Ukraine. The last 24 hours were considered the deadliest one-day period in 2017. In this time period, eight Ukrainian soldiers have now been killed, including five deaths in an attack which appears to have been initiated by Russian-led forces. We call again on Russia and the forces that it arms, trains, and leads in the east to immediately observe the ceasefire. To comply with the Minsk agreements, those forces must withdraw all heavy weapons, disengage from the line of contact, and allow full, safe, and unfettered access to the OSCE monitors to the international border.

I also want to take the opportunity to mark a sad anniversary. One year ago today, Ukrayinska Pravda journalist Pavel Sheremet – pardon me – was killed in a car bombing in Kyiv. Regrettably, no one has been accountable for his murder. We want to extend our deepest sympathies to his family and friends and urge the Government of Ukraine to use all available resources to bring those responsible to justice. The United States commends the efforts of the courageous journalists like him who expose corruption and promote a free and open exchange of ideas. We underscore the importance of protecting journalists and ensuring that the perpetrators of this murder face justice.

And I’ll start with your questions. I know we have a lot today.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Matt, where would you like to begin?

QUESTION: Well, let’s stay with Ukraine.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I find it a little interesting that you chose to top with that given other events of the day. So just to get the legal stuff out of the way first, the Secretary, when he became Secretary, pledged to recuse himself from any kind of – anything having to do with Exxon --

MS NAUERT: That’s correct.

QUESTION: -- and the government. I presume that is the case with Treasury and the OFAC announcement today? He had nothing --

MS NAUERT: That is correct.

QUESTION: -- nothing to do with --

MS NAUERT: The State Department was not involved with the announcement --

QUESTION: At all?

MS NAUERT: -- from Treasury, correct.

QUESTION: So not anyone – not even anyone lower was --

MS NAUERT: That --

QUESTION: -- consulted or was involved in this decision?

MS NAUERT: No. This was a – this was simply a Treasury action.

QUESTION: Do you – well, does he – what does he think about this?

MS NAUERT: The Secretary – we’re not going to have any comments today for you on some of the alleged facts or the facts underlying the enforcement action. Treasury is going to have to answer a lot of these questions for you. I’m not going to have a lot for you on this today. The Treasury Department was involved in this. They were the ones who spearheaded this. And so for a lot of your questions, I’m going to have to refer you to Treasury.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, this is a question specifically related to him.

MS NAUERT: Yes, yes.

QUESTION: And you’re going to refer me to Treasury?

MS NAUERT: Well, Treasury has a lot of the details, but beyond this --

QUESTION: Well, I want to know what he thinks.

MS NAUERT: Yes. I’m not going to comment on that at this time. The Secretary recused himself from his dealings with ExxonMobil at the time that he became Secretary of State. This all predates his time here at the Department of State, and so --

QUESTION: I understand that.

MS NAUERT: -- I’m going to refrain from giving any comment on that at this time.

QUESTION: I understand this predates his time as Secretary of State, but now he is in a position in which he is part of a team that is supposed to enforce sanctions, not violate them or allow others to violate them. So I think it’s relevant to know what he thinks about this decision today.

MS NAUERT: I think I will say this: The Secretary continues to abide by his ethical commitments, including that recusal from Exxon-related activities. The action was taken by the Department of State – excuse me, the Department of the Treasury, and State was not involved in this.

QUESTION: Right. Well, Exxon seems to – well, not seems to; Exxon says in its statement that it thinks that it’s being treated unfairly by OFAC and that it was led to believe that there was a difference between dealing with Mr. Sechin in a professional rather than a personal manner – in other words, that dealing with him professionally was okay; dealing with him personally was not. Does the – clearly --

MS NAUERT: You mentioned OFAC, the Office of Foreign Assets Control.

QUESTION: Clearly – clearly the Secretary --

MS NAUERT: That is under Treasury, so I can’t comment on anything from that.

QUESTION: Clearly the Secretary, who was the CEO of Exxon at the time, would have known that, and in fact, OFAC in its ruling says that Exxon’s senior-most executives knew of Sechin’s status as an SDN when they did – went ahead and did these deals anyway. So that suggests – or it doesn’t suggest, it says that Exxon didn’t think – Exxon knew he was a sanctioned person, but didn’t think that what it was doing was a violation. Does the Secretary still think that?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I hear your question. I’m not going to have any comment on the specifics that have come out of Treasury at this point. Exxon could perhaps best answer some of those questions, and Treasury can answer them as well.

QUESTION: Your – okay. Your opening statement about the Ukraine and the deteriorating situation there --

MS NAUERT: Correct.

QUESTION: -- the OFAC announcement says that ExxonMobil caused significant harm to the Ukraine-related sanctions program objectives by engaging in this by signing not one, two, three, four, but eight different contracts – or its subsidiary did. Is the Secretary committed to the sanctions program --

MS NAUERT: I think --

QUESTION: -- and the objectives of the sanctions programs?

MS NAUERT: I think the Secretary has been very clear not only about his support for the Government of Ukraine, the support for the president, Mr. Poroshenko. I think that’s incredibly evident by the fact that he just recently traveled over there. The Secretary had appointed Ambassador Kurt Volker to be a special envoy to handle Minsk and to handle the situation in eastern Ukraine. That’s something that’s extremely important to this building, the Secretary, Ambassador Volker as well --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- and the overall administration.

QUESTION: But if --

MS NAUERT: So I think our support of the Ukrainian Government is clear. We had a good series of meetings as the President Poroshenko was here in Washington not that long ago, and had a really good series of meetings when they were in Kyiv.

QUESTION: Right. And all of what you just said is true, which makes it all the more surprising that something like this would happen. I mean, did he not support the objectives of the U.S. Government when he was the chairman --

MS NAUERT: Again --

QUESTION: -- of Exxon?

MS NAUERT: I can’t speak to that.

QUESTION: And can you assure us that he does now?

MS NAUERT: I can’t speak to that in particular. I can tell you, additional questions you can speak with ExxonMobil; they would best address them. The Secretary has recused himself. He’s living up to his ethical commitments that he agreed to when he took this position as Secretary of State. I know some of these answers may not be satisfying to you, but that’s what I can give you right now.

QUESTION: And does – can you tell us if the Secretary believes in the objectives of the Ukraine-related sanctions programs?

MS NAUERT: I know that we have remained very concerned about maintaining sanctions. That will continue. We’ve been clear that sanctions will continue until Russia does what Russia needs to do.

QUESTION: Right, he said that.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: But I want to make – but he said that while he was in Ukraine. It was a very powerful statement.

MS NAUERT: We have – we have no --

QUESTION: Which is why something like this is all the more surprising.

MS NAUERT: We have no change in policy.

QUESTION: So you can assure us that he remains committed to the objectives of the sanctions program?

MS NAUERT: Pertaining to Ukraine.

QUESTION: Ukraine.

MS NAUERT: Yes, that is correct.

QUESTION: All right. Okay.

MS NAUERT: That is correct.

QUESTION: Heather, (inaudible) --

QUESTION: Just to follow up --

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hold on, let – hold on, hold on. Let’s continue on this issue, if anybody has any questions, and we’ll move on to something else. Carol.

QUESTION: For the record, will he come down and talk with us --

MS NAUERT: Well, I’m sorry, who --

QUESTION: -- talk about this? Just for the record, will he come down and talk about this to us himself?

MS NAUERT: Well, I’m here to speak on his behalf and on behalf of the building. There’s not a whole lot that we can say about this right now. Again, you can talk to Treasury or to Exxon about this. Okay.

QUESTION: Heather, did --

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: In his confirmation hearing, under questioning, he was asked what he would do in situations where – I believe it was referring to an Iran deal that had been signed between an Exxon subsidiary. But he was asked what he would do in a situation like that as Secretary of State, and he said, “I would certainly be open to having the folks at the State Department contact companies and inquire as to whether they’re aware of the actions that they’re taking in the State Department’s view.” So has he, as Secretary of State, been in touch with Exxon to caution them about their actions?

MS NAUERT: The Secretary has been – not to my knowledge. I can tell you this, that he has been extremely clear in his recusal of anything having to do with Exxon. When this information come to us here at the State Department, it did not come to the Secretary himself. It came to the Deputy Secretary John Sullivan. The Secretary has taken this very seriously, that Exxon-related activities are not something that he is involved with here as Secretary of State.

QUESTION: So is the deputy secretary involved in some way? Is he communicating with Exxon, or does he plan to?

MS NAUERT: He – I don’t know if he’s communicating with Exxon. I just know that we were informed of that decision. I believe it came from the Treasury Department.

Okay?

QUESTION: Was the Secretary aware that this guy was on the sanctions list and that he was signing it --

MS NAUERT: Carol, I can’t answer that question for you right now. Okay.

QUESTION: Regarding the violence --

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: -- is there – are there any new proposals before the, I guess the State Department and the White to provide more lethal aid to Ukraine? And does this violence that happened, is that more under consideration now because of what’s been happening there?

MS NAUERT: I can’t answer that for you at this point. I know that violence was concerning enough that it was brought to everyone’s attention here. We had conversations about that. That’s why I wanted to alert you all to it and underscore the importance and the level of concern that we have regarding that. Ambassador Kurt Volker will remain very engaged in the activities, trying to push both parties and also other countries who are involved in working on the Minsk accords to try to get Russia to fulfill what we’ve asked them to fulfill.

Okay? Is that it?

QUESTION: Yeah, but the violence has turned more lethal --

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay, hi.

QUESTION: Just given that the Secretary and Exxon violated these sanctions, is there any consideration that he would recuse himself --

MS NAUERT: I think that’s an unfair way of phrasing it. You say that he did that. This involves the company, and that’s why the company will have to speak to that, not --

QUESTION: And the senior-most executives in that company.

MS NAUERT: We don’t know who was involved in that. At least I don’t know who was involved in that at the time. Again, I’m not going to have a lot of information for you. Exxon could best answer that or Treasury Department.

QUESTION: Hold up.

QUESTION: But – go ahead.

QUESTION: Go ahead.

QUESTION: No, I was just going to say just last week the Secretary, speaking to reporters who were lucky enough to be on his plane with him, said that his life as Secretary is a lot different than being CEO of Exxon because, quote, “I was the ultimate decision maker.” It seems to me that if the company was aware that this guy, Mr. Sechin, was an SDN and decided to go ahead with the deals anyway because it thought that dealing with him professionally as opposed to personally was okay, that that would go to the ultimate decision maker of the company.

MS NAUERT: Matt, I think that’s a hypothetical, a hypothetical type question. You are assuming that he was involved with that decision making. I don’t know if that was the case or not.

QUESTION: Well, either he was the ultimate decision maker at Exxon or he wasn’t.

MS NAUERT: If one says that one is the ultimate decision maker, that would be like me saying that in my household. I’m the ultimate decision maker, implying that other people --

QUESTION: I have no doubt that you are. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: Implying that other people in my family don’t make decisions as well. You know that that is the case, that people share in things, so --

QUESTION: Right. But one thing that --

QUESTION: I mean, in that interview --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- the idea was that the buck stops with him.

MS NAUERT: Look, I’m not going to split hairs or parse words with what he said in that. I mean, it’s obviously different being the CEO of a company than being the Secretary of State, and I’m just going to leave it at that.

QUESTION: Well, I mean, he’s basically saying there that the buck stops with him, and now you’re sort of saying that, okay, well, this is not an issue --

MS NAUERT: I’m just saying I don’t have a whole lot for you on this. Treasury and Exxon can best answer your questions about it. Okay?

QUESTION: Have you asked him for his personal thoughts on this, and he has said that he doesn’t want to say anything?

MS NAUERT: We have had these conversations, and it’s been made very clear that this is something best for Exxon to handle. So I’m just going to leave it at that.

QUESTION: But as it relates to his current role as Secretary of State and his commitment to the sanctions program, the objectives of the sanctions programs, could someone please ask or have him come down here and tell us whether or not he’s completely committed to them?

MS NAUERT: I think his visits and his meetings with President Poroshenko – he made those commitments extremely clear. The fact that one of the very first envoys that he appointed or asked to take on this role, I think it’s notable that it was over the issue of Ukraine.

QUESTION: Right. Which is why, again, I’ve got to say it’s so surprising that he, as CEO of Exxon, would have countenanced or would have not been involved in a decision that – to go ahead and do this kind of business, given the damage that Treasury says it costs – caused to the sanctions regime objectives.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: That’s --

MS NAUERT: Perhaps Treasury can do – I want to finish Conor’s question. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: No, no. That’s okay. The first one just – is there any thought for the Secretary to recuse himself from any decision involving sanctions then?

MS NAUERT: Sanctions in general?

QUESTION: With these Ukraine sanctions in particular, given that there was a violation.

MS NAUERT: Oh. The sanctions are in place. We are not backing away from those sanctions. And subsequent conversations that may come down the pike, I’m not going to get ahead of what those might be. Okay?

QUESTION: So he’ll be involved in them.

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. We haven’t had that conversation just yet. Our focus today has been on the news that has come out of this. I’ll keep you posted if I have anything for you on this, okay?

QUESTION: You said the Russian-led separatists in Ukraine.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: So does that imply that there are Russian military advisors who are actually leading these forces and particularly on the battlefield?

MS NAUERT: It does. It does. We’ve talked about this, and I underscored this a few weeks back, that we believe that they are so-called separatists. They’re not genuine separatists who are out there fighting on their own regard and their own behalf. These are Russian-led and Russian-backed. Okay?

QUESTION: So – but just to clarify that Russian military advisors --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Is it the Russian military who are leading the --

MS NAUERT: Russian-led --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Russian-advised.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi, hi, hi.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can we move on?

MS NAUERT: Okay. And we’re going to – and then we’re going to move on. Michele, I’ll take your last question.

QUESTION: I understand that the technical side of this is with Treasury and you’re referring all of that to them. But as spokesperson for the State Department, can you say why the American public should trust that the Secretary is committed to these sanctions on Russia, when the company he led obviously did not take them seriously?

MS NAUERT: Michele, I wouldn’t go that far. This is early on in this process. We were just alerted to this yesterday. So this is all new. It’s developing right now. Treasury will have more for you, and perhaps Exxon as well. And I’m just going to --

QUESTION: Well, it’s not early on in the – the process is over, isn’t it?

MS NAUERT: Well, we’re just all learning about it. We’re all just learning about this.

QUESTION: But then his company, the company he led, violated the sanctions scheme. So how can the American people trust that he is committed to continuing with this --

MS NAUERT: I think he was very clear with President Poroshenko. The United States, this administration, the President, have all been very clear about our support for the Ukrainian Government, for its sovereignty and territorial integrity. And I’m going to leave it at that. Okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Let’s move on. Said, hi. How are you?

QUESTION: Thank you. I appreciate it. Can we go to the situation in Jerusalem?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Because it seems that the Israelis are deploying maybe thousands of troops for tomorrow, tomorrow’s prayer. And there are maybe hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who are marching on to Jerusalem, because despite your best efforts, it seems that the Israelis are sticking to their decisions to have these metal detectors and so on. Do you have any comment on that? Are you in conversation with the Israeli Government on this issue?

MS NAUERT: First, let me say we all know that this is an extremely sensitive matter. This is something we are watching very closely here, so I’m going to be very cautious and careful in my words, because we don’t want to do anything that would potentially escalate tensions. We support the status quo and we welcome all sides continuing their commitment to maintaining the status quo. On this matter, I’m not going to have a lot for you. We have been clear and we’ve – about our encouragement of all sides to take measures to not escalate the situation there.

QUESTION: But the status quo does not include metal detectors. So you are opposed to the installation of metal detectors and having worshipers go through these metal detectors?

MS NAUERT: What – as far as I’m going to go on this is to say we support the – excuse me – we support the maintenance of the status quo.

QUESTION: Okay. Just one last question. Are you in any conversation with the Jordanians, with the Israelis, on this issue to sort of mitigate the tensions and so on, urging the Israelis perhaps not to deploy such a huge force, military force?

MS NAUERT: We are encouraging both sides to not take any actions that would potentially escalate tensions. And let me just leave it at that. Okay?

QUESTION: Can I just ask though --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- is there no answer to the question of whether or not the status quo is currently being maintained?

MS NAUERT: We --

QUESTION: Or whether it – the status quo has somehow shifted over the course of the last week?

QUESTION: (Sneeze.)

MS NAUERT: Bless you. We talked about this the other day. The status quo is --

QUESTION: Yeah. You didn’t answer it then.

MS NAUERT: No. No, no. Look, this is a tense situation.

QUESTION: I understand.

MS NAUERT: We recognize that, and we don’t want to do anything that would potentially escalate tensions.

QUESTION: Right. But one way --

MS NAUERT: We continue to speak with the governments in the region to try to encourage a peace process. That peace process is supported by this State Department, also Mr. Greenblatt, Mr. Kushner, and we’d just encourage both sides to maintain the status quo.

QUESTION: Right, I – I get that, but one of the ways to keep tensions from rising is to call out one side or the other if and when they do something that changes the status quo that you want to preserve so badly. So the question is: Does the introduction of these metal detectors for Muslim worshipers change the status quo in some way? Would you like to see the Israelis remove them or – not – unplug them or something, or --

MS NAUERT: We would like to see – and let me just be clear on this once again – we would like to see both parties take measures to not escalate the situation there, and I’m just going to leave it at that.

QUESTION: So you can’t give any example of what measure that might be?

MS NAUERT: I’m going to leave it at that, okay? Thanks. Hey, Barbara. How are you?

QUESTION: Can I go to Syria?

MS NAUERT: Certainly.

QUESTION: So just a question about the decision to drop support for the rebels. Why is that decision being made now given that there’s no political settlement or the political process is continuing? Because that seems – the U.S. is giving up at least the tiny bit of leverage that it might have had.

MS NAUERT: So – hold on. The premise of your question is in the affirmative, as though that is being done, okay? I get what you’re trying to do here. Okay, let me just say this is an intelligence matter. I’d have to refer you to the intelligence committee on that. I don’t have any information on I think one of the stories that you’re asking me about.

QUESTION: You can’t say anything about it?

MS NAUERT: It’s an intelligence matter.

QUESTION: Do you have a comment --

QUESTION: Does – but given that the Secretary said again during his trip that the – Assad has to go, would he support something like this?

MS NAUERT: I think we have been very clear in this building that we do not see a long-term future for Bashar al-Assad or his family to legitimately lead that country. Okay?

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the killing of 28 Syrian soldiers today, ambushed by I think elements of Jabhat al-Nusrah? Would you consider that to be an act of terrorism or genocide?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have – I’m afraid I don’t have anything for you on that. I’m sorry.

Okay. Hey, John.

QUESTION: Just related to Barbara’s question --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the President as a candidate said multiple times that we don’t know who the rebels are and we shouldn’t be supporting them. So is – what she’s referring to, is that reflective of his position and him following through on his promises on the campaign trail?

MS NAUERT: I think what you’d have to do is speak to the White House on that. I think they have a briefing going on right about now.

QUESTION: Okay, but in terms of a future and U.S. policy towards Syria, is supplying arms to the rebels part of that solution that the State Department and the --

MS NAUERT: Let’s not forget why the United States is in Syria. The United States is in Syria to defeat ISIS, and we remain committed to that. We do not think – separate from that, we do not think that Bashar al-Assad has a long-term future in that country. Okay?

Okay, anything else on Syria?

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: Korea.

QUESTION: Syria.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: Can you just clarify, then, which of these moderate rebel groups the U.S. continues to support, if you’re saying that you can’t confirm the CIA story and --

MS NAUERT: Well, of course I can’t confirm an intelligence matter story, okay, so perhaps --

QUESTION: Of course, but can you confirm to them – those fighters on the ground that the U.S. has been working with – that we – which ones you are still behind?

MS NAUERT: I think this would – I mean, it’s no secret that we support – the United States Government does – and back, along with the coalition, the Syrian Democratic Forces. Beyond that, I’m going to have to refer you to the Department of Defense. They can best answer the questions about which various groups they might be working with.

QUESTION: And just to follow up on the ceasefire in southwest Syria, there are reports that there are Russian forces on the ground there now. Can you confirm that there are Russian forces --

MS NAUERT: I have not seen that report. Without having seen that report, I don’t want to comment on it, okay?

QUESTION: And so there’s no one actually monitoring yet? You have no update for us?

MS NAUERT: I cannot say that no one is monitoring it. We have lots of sources that can keep an eye on situations, and I’m just going to leave it at that, okay?

QUESTION: Do you know, on the ceasefire, whether or not the Secretary or deputy or – and someone – any people have talked to the Israelis in – since Sunday, maybe it was, I think, that they --

MS NAUERT: Well – yeah, I know the Secretary spoke with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday.

QUESTION: But since then, you --

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware if he’s had any calls with him at this point --

QUESTION: Different subject?

MS NAUERT: -- since that. Okay. Okay, hold on. Are we done with Syria?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Syria-related.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Okay. Hi, Janne.

QUESTION: North Korea --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, thanks.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather.

MS NAUERT: I’ll come back to you.

QUESTION: Thank you, Heather. On the list --

MS NAUERT: You said North Korea, right?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: But we’re still on Syria.

QUESTION: Yes. Yesterday, State Department released on the list of the terrorism countries. Why did the list exclude the North Korea from sponsor of terrorism?

MS NAUERT: The question is why is North Korea not on the --

QUESTION: Not on the list, yeah.

MS NAUERT: -- state sponsor of terror?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: And thank you to any of you who joined our call yesterday on that matter. So as I understand it, as a matter of law, for any country to be designated as a state sponsor of terror, the Secretary of State has to determine that the government of that country has repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism. The designations are made after careful review of all available evidence to determine if a country meets the statutory criteria for that designation, so that was the assessment.

QUESTION: But Heather, do you know that Kim Jong-un killed his brother? Is not this terrorism?

MS NAUERT: We – that was --

QUESTION: That’s an excellent question.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, yeah.

QUESTION: Why isn’t assassination terrorism?

QUESTION: Yes, that’s an issue.

MS NAUERT: Let me look into that to see if we have an official position on that, and I’ll get back with you, okay?

QUESTION: All right.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: Hi, yeah. Yeah, just staying with Korea, yesterday the South Korean Government said that it will designate a national day to commemorate the victims of Japanese sexual slavery. Can you comment on that plan? And also, do you have any updates on either U.S. or UN sanctions against North Korea?

MS NAUERT: So I’ve – as – folks who are here a lot know that I’m not going to preview any potential upcoming sanctions. I know the United Nations and the UN, the Security Council, that is something that people are discussing up there. So I’m just going to hold off on commenting on that. In terms of your other question, I was not aware of the fact that they were talking about making a – tell me – explain that again. It was an international --

QUESTION: A national day commemorating the victims of sexual slavery.

MS NAUERT: And that is something that we, by and large, condemn. We’ve talked – I mean, we very clearly condemn that, and we’ve talked about that matter before. It’s an area of major concern of ours, and I’ll just – I’ll leave at that. I know it’s a very sensitive issue for the matter.

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Quick follow-up, again, North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Sorry?

QUESTION: Do you have any information on North Korea preparing to another ICBM test?

MS NAUERT: So I’ve seen that report, and I’m just not going to comment on that at this time, okay?

QUESTION: Did you --

MS NAUERT: That’s an intelligence matter and an area of concern would be an intelligence leak.

QUESTION: Well, we have to know that.

MS NAUERT: Well, and – well, hold on a second. There are people who work for the government who take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. When that is done – I did it myself – I stand in front of an American flag, you put your hand up, and you take that oath to protect the Constitution. Leaking classified intelligence information harms our national security and harms our Constitution. And let me leave that at that.

QUESTION: Egypt?

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Hold on. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

MS NAUERT: Yeah?

QUESTION: How does – there – what about authorized leaks of classified information? There are times when this administration, previous administrations, have authorized officials to – or to give information that otherwise would be classified --

MS NAUERT: Matt, I’m not familiar with the release of – an authorized release of intelligence information at this point that’s classified, okay?

QUESTION: You’re not, ever?

QUESTION: Egypt?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of anything, okay? Thanks.

QUESTION: Hold on.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Just one question about --

MS NAUERT: Okay, go right ahead. We’ll stay in Asia.

QUESTION: So on the U.S.-Japan-Korea trilateral policy planning dialogue yesterday, can you give us any readout? And also, was the proposal for North-South Korea talks discussed then?

MS NAUERT: And what was the second part of the question?

QUESTION: Was the proposal for inner-Korean talks discussed as a part of that trilateral?

MS NAUERT: So we don’t have a fulsome readout of that meeting, but I know that Brian Hook, our head of policy planning, was in that meeting – that trilateral meeting that took place here yesterday. The issue of North Korea certainly did come up – concerns about all working together to work to the eventual goal of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula, and that was one of the topics of conversation, along with South China Sea and other matters.

QUESTION: Egypt.

MS NAUERT: Okay? Okay.

QUESTION: Can I follow up on that?

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

QUESTION: So when we asked about the South and North Korean talks on Tuesday, we were referred to talk to the South Korean Government. And now it’s arguable that the talks are even going to happen, but I’m just wondering why the reluctance to comment on that.

MS NAUERT: Well, we would never comment on another country’s correspondence or meetings. If South Korea and North Korea want to sit down and meet, they will work out those meeting arrangements together. We wouldn’t be involved in that process; therefore, it wouldn’t be appropriate for the State Department to speak about meetings that could potentially happen between two nations. Does that --

QUESTION: You consider that a domestic issue, then?

MS NAUERT: That – we don’t, by and large, comment on conversations that take place between two separate nations. You could ask me a lot – about a lot of regions of the world, and I would give you that very same answer.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay? Okay. Hi. (Inaudible), how are you? Nice to see you.

QUESTION: Hi. Heather, are you at all watching the recent developments in Poland around or surrounding judiciary? And if so, what is your comment?

MS NAUERT: Give me just a second here. The – we have followed that issue very closely about what’s happening with the parliament there, and let me try to find my information here today. Give me just a second. Tricky book sometimes.

QUESTION: Under P.

MS NAUERT: No, it’s not under P. Not every country has its own tab, which I’m sure will cause a lot of questions.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Don’t blame me for that. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to blame you for it whatsoever. Could somebody help me find this?

STAFF: EUR 1.

MS NAUERT: And where is EUR 1? Here we go. Very sorry. Yes, okay.

So the question was about the Polish parliament. They recently passed a law that fundamentally changed the way that the supreme court justices are appointed. As you know, the President and the Secretary of State not long ago – or rather, the President – was in Poland. One of the things that is important to us is our relationship with the people of Poland. Poland is a fellow democracy and a close ally of the United States. We care deeply about that nation and the people there. We are concerned about Polish Government’s continued pursuit of legislation that appears to limit the judiciary and potentially weaken the rule of law in Poland. So we continue to watch that situation very carefully. We continue to have conversations at the highest level with the Government of Poland and express our concerns about that.

QUESTION: Will you be asking the president of Poland to veto the bill?

MS NAUERT: I am not aware if we will ask him to do that. But I can’t get too much into what some of the private diplomatic conversations are, so let me just leave it as we are concerned about that legislation.

QUESTION: But you are in touch with the Polish authorities, right?

MS NAUERT: We have good relationships with the Poles. I know we have been in close contact with them over a lot of issues, and I imagine this would certainly be one of them.

QUESTION: Egypt, please.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: Egypt.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Hi. Hi.

QUESTION: Can you talk to us a little bit --

MS NAUERT: Miss, hi. What’s your name?

QUESTION: I’m Rana and I’m with Al-Hurra TV. I’m subbing for Michel. You probably know Michel, but yeah.

MS NAUERT: Nice to meet you. Welcome.

QUESTION: Nice to meet you. So I am – I want to ask about the Travel Warning that you issued about traveling to Egypt, basically. Do you have more to say about that, and did you get any info about the dissatisfaction of the Egyptian Government regarding this decision?

MS NAUERT: Let me see what I have. Let me get back to you on that, okay?

QUESTION: Not now?

MS NAUERT: Not now. I’m sorry. Let me get back to you. Okay.

QUESTION: Did you --

QUESTION: There is more in Egypt.

QUESTION: Do you have anything – did you get any call from the Egyptian Government today regarding this decision? Because that’s what the government is saying, that they contacted the State Department.

MS NAUERT: I see. Not that I’m aware of. I can look into that and get back to you. Okay, okay.

QUESTION: Did you share the information with the Egyptian authorities?

MS NAUERT: Again, I’m not aware of any calls that have taken place with the Egyptian Government. I’ll look into both of – both of those items for you, okay? Thank you.

Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: I have few India and related questions.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: There was election of a new Indian president. Do you have anything on that?

MS NAUERT: Yes. We were very pleased to see and want to welcome him on his election to the presidency – or the president-elect, now that he is. Your election was just today, right?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Were you able to get in and vote?

QUESTION: It’s not for us. It’s for the member of parliament and assemblymen to vote for that. It’s indirect elections for the president, not a direct election.

MS NAUERT: Oh, it’s an indirect, okay. Pardon me. So we want to congratulate the President-elect Ram Nath Kovind – I hope I’m saying that correctly – on his victory in India’s presidential elections that was held today. The United States and India have a deep and growing strategic partnership. We look forward to working with the president-elect on regional and global issues. That partnership is obviously underpinned by our very close people-to-people contact with the Indian Government and our shared democratic values.

We got to go, gang. Thanks.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I want to ask you on China – India-China border standoff. It has been more than a month now. Media reports say that Chinese foreign ministry briefed diplomats in Beijing. Was the U.S. briefed on this issue by the Beijing?

MS NAUERT: We – this is something we’ve been following. We spoke to this – I believe it was on Tuesday this week. This is a situation that we are following closely and carefully. I’d have to refer you to the governments of India and China for more information on that. See, there we go. I’m not --

QUESTION: I have one more on China.

MS NAUERT: They’re talking those issues. They’re going to talk to one another. We would encourage them to direct – engage in direct dialogue aimed at reducing tensions.

QUESTION: Heather --

QUESTION: Have you spoken to Indians and Chinese on this?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware if we have or not. Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Guys, we got to go. We --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Wait, wait. Why do you have to go?

QUESTION: One more on China, on the --

MS NAUERT: We have to go today.

QUESTION: I need to ask you about two of your NATO allies, Turkey and Germany, who are at each other’s throats. Do you have any concerns about that?

MS NAUERT: I – Matt, I’m going to have to get back to you on that, okay?

QUESTION: Just one more on China – U.S.-China --

MS NAUERT: Sorry. I’m sorry, guys. We got to go.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:54 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - July 18, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





July 18, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



TURKEY



IRAN



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



SOUTH KOREA/NORTH KOREA



RUSSIA/REGION



UKRAINE



RUSSIA



INDIA



PAKISTAN



RUSSIA/SYRIA



YEMEN



INDIA/CHINA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:23 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Good afternoon, everybody. This is a full room today. Is everyone back and rested from their trips overseas? Yes? Not all at once.

QUESTION: I was here.

MS NAUERT: Okay, you were here. Okay. Well, good to see you this morning.

A couple things going on today, and first, I want to welcome – we have a more packed room than usual – we have some very special guests here, and they are joining us from Iraq, ladies and gentlemen, sitting in the back of the room. They work for the Iraqi Government, and they’ve been here visiting the United States, learning more about journalism, but also the work of a spokesperson. And that’s what they do for their government: work as spokespeople and media directors. Twelve of you are here. We’d like to thank you for coming to the United States. You’ve made a long trip, especially after a very difficult time and a hard-fought battle in Mosul. So we welcome you here. Thank you.

As part of their trip here, I want to mention that they were at the D-ISIS meetings that took place here at the State Department last week. Our Iraqi friends toured the Department of Defense’s Defense Media Activity Center at Fort Meade, and yesterday they had some briefings here at the State Department. And they’ve done some press along the way, so perhaps you might pepper them with some questions so they can see what U.S. journalists are really like. But I ask you to be nice – be nice to our guests. They also did a joint press briefing with the coalition spokesperson, Colonel Ryan Dillon, and we are honored to have our Iraqi partners and friends here, especially so soon after that Mosul victory. So welcome to the State Department.

Second thing: I know that a lot of you have asked a lot of questions about Middle East peace and the State Department’s cooperation and coordination with the White House, specifically the President’s Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt, and also Mr. Kushner. Yesterday, a team from here, myself included, we went over to the White House and sat down with Mr. Greenblatt and his team and learned a little bit more about what they are doing from our point of view and from their point of view. So we want to thank them for inviting us over to the White House for that meeting. He provided us with a short readout on the meeting that he held – the meetings that he held last week in Israel, so let me just go over a little bit of that with you.

Mr. Greenblatt continued efforts to advance President Trump’s goal of a comprehensive Israeli-Palestinian peace deal. I don’t have any additional travel to read out for you at this time, but Mr. Greenblatt provides – plans to provide regular visits to the region and coordinate with the Department of State and also the National Security Council. At the conclusion of Mr. Greenblatt’s visit, it coincided with the terror attack that took place at Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif that left two Israeli police officers dead and one wounded, and that dominated the news cycle while he was there. The horrific attack should not detract from the push for peace, but rather remind us all that – more that – more so that there is a need for peace.

We can’t let the actions of a few undermine the prospects for both Israelis and Palestinians to secure a more peaceful and prosperous future. To that end, last week, Mr. Greenblatt helped senior Israeli and Palestinian officials reach important agreements on key issues of water and electricity that will make the lives of both people materially better. We continue to urge the parties to undertake efforts to promote an environment that is conducive to advancing peace and that the two agreements are another indication that mutually beneficial arrangements can be made. We hope they’re a harbinger of things to come and we’ll keep you apprised of future progress and also travel for Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt.

And then finally, a third thing I’d like to bring to your attention: You may have seen what took place in Turkey in recent days, and the United States strongly condemns the arrest of six respected human rights activists and calls for their immediate release. This includes Amnesty International’s director in Turkey, Idil Eser, and several foreign nationals. Prosecutions like these with little evidence or transparency undermine Turkey’s rule of law and the country’s obligations to respect individual rights. We urge Turkish authorities to drop the charges, release those who have been detained, and remove the provisions of the state of emergency that allow indiscriminate prosecution of individuals. So we will continue to keep an eye on that.

And with that, I’ll take your questions. Matt, do you want to start?

QUESTION: Thanks. I’m sure we’ll get back to Middle East and Turkey --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but I want to start with Iran and the – yesterday’s certification.

MS NAUERT: Okay, yes.

QUESTION: Can you put this into very plain English? Does the administration believe, yes or no, that Iran is complying with the terms of the JCPOA?

MS NAUERT: So we had sent the notes up to Congress certifying that Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA. However, the United States firmly believes that it is in violation of the spirit of the law with regard to an important part of it. And part of what the JCPOA agreement says is it’s supposed to contribute to regional and international peace and security, and we believe that some of the actions that the Iranian Government has been involved with undermines that stated goal of regional and international peace and security.

Iran remains – and we all know this – one of the most dangerous threats to the United States – not only our interests here, around the world, but also to regional stability. And I’ve got a whole list of things that we can go over here that Iran is responsible for. Their full range of activities extend far beyond the nuclear threat, and I think we are all full aware of that: ballistic missile development and proliferation; support to terrorism and militancy; it’s complicit in the Assad regime’s atrocities against its own people; unrelenting hostility to Israel that continues and has continued for quite some time; they have consistently threatened freedom of navigation, especially in the Persian Gulf; cyberattacks on the United States, and I can go on. I mean, these are no surprise, and this is something that this administration wants to get Iran to try to adhere to the spirit of that agreement, the regional, international peace and security.

QUESTION: Okay. But the – when you said – I just want to clarify one thing you said – that the spirit – they’re violating the spirit of the law first time, you mean agreement, not law?

MS NAUERT: The agreement, yes.

QUESTION: Okay. And then this is not related to that, but it’s Iran. Is there any update on the Chinese American who was sentenced?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Mr. Xiuye Wang. So we are aware of the reports that Mr. Xiuye Wang, a U.S. citizen, has been detained in Iran. For privacy reasons, we can’t really get too much into the specific details of that case. As you all know, one of the things we consistently say here is that the safety and security of U.S. citizens remains a top priority for this administration, and I would think for all administrations here in the United States. We continue to use all means at our disposal to advocate for U.S. citizens who need our assistance overseas, especially for the release of any unjustly detained U.S. citizens who are held overseas.

Mr. Xiuye Wang is a United States citizen. We remain very concerned about his case, continue to keep an eye on that. As you all know, we don’t have folks on the ground there; we work with the Swiss foreign interest section. They are considered to be our protecting power in Iran, and they have granted consular access to Mr. Wang. So we’ve regularly sought that consular access to him, and the Swiss have visited him now four times.

QUESTION: So do you know when you guys were informed of his arrest?

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Because it’s not – it’s almost, I would say, rare for Iran to allow consular access, since they don’t recognize dual citizens, usually when they’re Iranian Americans. Is it your understanding that because he’s Chinese American and not Iranian, that’s why they’re letting the Swiss --

MS NAUERT: My understanding is that he’s American American. He’s not a dual citizen of China and the United States.

QUESTION: Gotcha. All right.

MS NAUERT: He’s an American.

QUESTION: And do you know when it was that you found out, were notified about his initial arrest?

MS NAUERT: I can check into that for you. I don’t have an exact date in front of me.

QUESTION: Great. Thanks.

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Iran? Hi, Carol.

QUESTION: Can we go to where you started?

QUESTION: About the prisoners. In the statement this morning, you said – you specifically mentioned Mr. Wang, the Namazis, you said, and all other U.S. citizens who are detained wrongfully in Iran. Could you tell the American people how many other U.S. citizens are detained, beyond those three?

MS NAUERT: I can’t at this time. The United States cautions American citizens against travel there. There are certain nations where if an individual is a dual nationality, dual citizenship, that Iran does not – like other countries sometimes does not – acknowledge that and accept that somebody is a dual national. They think of them as a full national of their country. We caution people to avoid that country and for the obvious reasons.

QUESTION: Well, why won’t you give a number? I understand you can’t, for privacy reasons, give names. But why can’t you give a number, or a rough number? More than a dozen?

MS NAUERT: I wouldn’t give any kind of an estimate at all. If I have something specific for you that I can give to you, I certainly will.

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Thanks. Let’s stay on Iran.

QUESTION: Iran.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, Said.

QUESTION: Can we go to where you started?

MS NAUERT: One second. Pardon me?

QUESTION: Can we go where you started, on the Middle East peace topic?

MS NAUERT: Let’s come back to that. Let’s stick with Iran first, please. Hi.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) So can you say – you certified the compliance last night, but did the administration also sign a round of sanction waivers to keep the deal in place as well?

MS NAUERT: Yes. So sanction waivers – there are some that are in place right now. I can definitely confirm that.

QUESTION: So was there a signing last night though? I know there’s a deadline, I think, today.

MS NAUERT: Well, we were – we are in compliance with our end of the deal. We had until I believe it was midnight to certify that and then provide the information to Capitol Hill, and that was all done.

QUESTION: Okay. And the last time the Secretary signed a round of sanction waivers he said that the administration was beginning a 90-day review of all Iran policy. That would be ending today. Is that review ongoing? Has the deadline been pushed back?

MS NAUERT: The overall review – like we have a lot of policy reviews, on Afghanistan for example, Pakistan for example – Iran is one of them where we have an ongoing policy review that is taking place. We believe that while they – while Iran is in compliance with the JCPOA, that there are still a lot of things that Iran is doing that is very troubling to this administration. And so we’re going to try to push on that – on the Iranian regime to stop its destabilizing activities.

QUESTION: One last question. When the Secretary signed the certification last time, he also said that – he criticized the deal, saying that it kicked the can down the road of a non-nuclear Iran. So is it the position of the administration then that Iran should never be allowed to have any nuclear energy whatsoever?

MS NAUERT: I think nuclear energy and nuclear weapons are different matters. I’m not an expert in that area in particular, but they are separate matters.

QUESTION: So you would accept a nuclear-powered Iran, but not one that had a --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get ahead of what the policy review is going to contain; that has people at the White House and people here at the State Department and others all involved in that. So I just don’t want to get ahead of anything that they’re going to do.

QUESTION: China?

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) Iran?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi.

QUESTION: When it comes to the Secretary’s engagement with European partners who are also part of the JCPOA, the administration was talking about how it wanted to get stronger enforcement and perhaps, in a sense, almost an addendum to the current agreement when it came to some of the sunsets. Does the administration believe it has willing partners in European allies? I mean, they’ve got some businesses who are doing business in Iran right now and it’s profitable. Has the administration or the Secretary gotten pushback? And what have his engagements been like on that front?

MS NAUERT: It’s interesting, because some would think that our European allies and our partners and our friends would only be interested in adhering to the JCPOA, but that’s not our experience at all. Our experience is that they remain just as concerned, as the United States does, about the destabilizing activities that Iran remains involved with, whether it’s supporting terrorism or other things as well. So this does not just affect the United States and the United States interests, but it affects other countries as well.

QUESTION: And a willingness to go further, as the U.S. has laid out?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to get into commenting on what other countries are going to do. But I know we have those conversations and those conversations are ongoing.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Michele.

QUESTION: Around about noon yesterday the President was seriously considering not certifying this. Shortly after that, he met with the Secretary.

MS NAUERT: I wouldn’t characterize it that way. There were meetings underway at the White House yesterday. And those meetings took place for a period of time, and the Secretary and the President and everyone else had conversations. And we ultimately ended up sending the letters up to the Hill and informing the Hill that Iran was in compliance.

QUESTION: Did Secretary Tillerson need to convince the President and spell this out and --

MS NAUERT: I wouldn’t put it that way at all. I mean, they had a series of conversations, as they have about a lot of other issues.

QUESTION: Did he make that argument though? Was that part of what he wanted to do while he was there at the White House?

MS NAUERT: I think the Secretary and the President are in line with one another.

Okay. Anything else on Iran?

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Iran? Okay. We’re done with Iran. Okay. You want to go to --

QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Heather.

MS NAUERT: -- Middle East peace. Let’s see what we can do to solve it, huh?

QUESTION: Yeah, exactly. So this – is this your first time meeting with Mr. Greenblatt on this very issue?

MS NAUERT: Myself, personally.

QUESTION: No, I mean from the department.

MS NAUERT: No. No, I know other people from the State Department have had a series of conversations with him and discussions with him. He has been in meetings in Israel with our ambassador there and others as well. So there are a whole lots – lot of those conversations and dialogues taking place. It was just my first time having the opportunity to go over there and hear firsthand about some of the activities.

QUESTION: Okay. So are we likely to see a more active State Department in the Middle East peace process, as we have seen in the past?

MS NAUERT: Well, the State Department has been active. We’ve been accompanying Mr. Greenblatt and also Mr. Kushner on a lot of these trips. We help facilitate that. We help provide some additional expertise and backup. And they’re very generous. They like to work with us; we like to work with them. And he’s extremely hospitable, so he invited our team over and we just went over to say hi and learn more about what he’s going to be doing.

QUESTION: Okay. I have just a couple more.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Yesterday, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the French president that he’s skeptical about the Trump administration peace efforts and peace process. Do you have any comment on that? He does not – I mean, it is not like that kind of engagement from the administration.

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of the prime minister’s comments. This is the first I’m hearing of them. But I know that we have a very good relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and we have – this administration has talked a lot about the importance of promoting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

QUESTION: And finally, I want to ask you about al-Aqsa closure, if you have any comment on that, because this is a clash – a flash point. It’s a very volatile situation and so on. Are you calling on the Israelis to sort of stand down with the measures that they have taken such as the metal detectors and the closing off the area for Palestinian prayers and Muslim prayers?

MS NAUERT: I think first what I would want to say about that is the White House had issued a statement on that very matter that you are addressing.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: And we continue to condemn terror attacks that take place on individuals.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: That occurred on Friday. That occurred at the end of – let me finish here. That occurred at the end of Mr. Greenblatt’s meetings. Always – I want to say this – when these types of events occur, we want to express our condolences to the families of those who have been affected. Hold on, Said. I’m not done yet.

Zero tolerance for terrorism. And that is something that we believe very strongly in. We would urge all sides to take steps to reduce tensions. We support the maintenance of the status quo and expect both sides to fulfill their commitments to that.

QUESTION: But I just want to remind you that the attackers are Israeli citizens. They come from a town up north. They came all the way down to Jerusalem to assault the --

MS NAUERT: We are promoting – Said, we --

QUESTION: Why punish the Jerusalemites? Why are they being punished?

MS NAUERT: We are promoting peace. And that’s something that is one of the top issues for this administration, and we’ll continue to talk about that. And things like this, when they happen, it has the ability, it has the ability, to de-escalate – or excuse me, has the ability to put things on a bad path. So we would encourage that to certainly not happen. Okay?

QUESTION: Two --

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that?

MS NAUERT: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Two brief things on this. One, you said you support the maintenance of the status quo. Do you believe that the status quo is being maintained? Or has – have the Israelis, in putting the metal detectors up, changed the status quo?

MS NAUERT: We have – we have been clear with the Israelis in our conversations about this, and I just don’t want to get into any possible diplomatic conversations.

QUESTION: Right. But do you – but forget about a conversation. Does the administration think that the status quo is being maintained right now?

MS NAUERT: The Israeli Government has pledged that they will maintain the status quo, and we would hope and expect them to do that.

QUESTION: But are they?

MS NAUERT: Again --

QUESTION: Do you think – what’s your – I mean, you look at the situation. Can you say that the status quo is being maintained? Because the Jordanians, who are in charge of the – that – for the area are very concerned that the status quo isn’t being maintained.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: So what’s – can we get an answer for that?

MS NAUERT: I am not aware of the Secretary having spoken with the Jordanians about this matter in particular. They were just in town last week, as you all know.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: But if I have anything more for you, I can get back to you on that.

QUESTION: Okay. And then the last thing is did you ever get an answer to the question I had the other week about whether this administration draws a difference between housing that’s built in East Jerusalem for Israelis as opposed to West Bank? Do you consider East Jerusalem housing to be settlements?

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure that I do. You know what? I don’t think I do, but let me look into that for you. Okay?

QUESTION: All right, thanks.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Any – pardon.

QUESTION: You might want to know that 600 more or 700 more housing units were declared today. I wonder if you have a statement on that.

MS NAUERT: I do not. Not on that today. Thank you. Hi.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Janne.

QUESTION: Hi, nice meeting you. (Laughter.) Okay, on South Korea, two questions for the South Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Recently, South Korean Government proposed military talks with North Korea. Can you confirm that the South Korean Government informed the U.S. in advance this issue?

MS NAUERT: So, I can’t confirm any diplomatic conversations that took place on that matter. As you know, we had a terrific visit from President Moon not long ago who visited with our President, and also Secretary Tillerson was able to sit down with his counterpart here. We had a terrific meeting with them. They are an important partner with the United States, and that continues to be the case.

In terms of the proposal that you just mentioned, I would have to refer you back to the Government of the Republic of Korea. But overall, I would say we share the very same goal, and that is a denuclearized Korean Peninsula. We’ve both remained very concerned about the activities of the DPRK, the launching of the intercontinental ballistic missile, for example, and we want to see a complete and verifiable, irreversible denuclearization of the peninsula.

Okay, yes.

QUESTION: One more on the FTA issues. Regarding in the FTA renegotiations that the U.S. wants from South Korea, does it means a revision negotiation or full renegotiations?

MS NAUERT: Does it mean food negotiations?

QUESTION: Yeah. Or revisit.

MS NAUERT: Let me look into that. I don’t have anything for you that’s recent on that, but let me check. Okay?

QUESTION: All right. Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Mike. Right? Mike?

QUESTION: I have one more on North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Right?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Right. Hi.

QUESTION: Hi, nice to --

MS NAUERT: We haven’t met before, but yes.

QUESTION: Michael Lavers from the Washington Blade.

MS NAUERT: Yes, yes. Good to see you.

QUESTION: I’m wondering if you have any comment on the most recent comments that the president of Chechnya made about the ongoing crackdown against gays and lesbians in Chechnya?

And then, second, as a follow-up to that, can you explain why the Secretary has not publicly commented on this situation as of yet? I know the State Department has, but not the Secretary specifically. Any reason why?

MS NAUERT: So first, let me say we are certainly aware of those comments that were made. Those comments on the part of the Chechen president were very concerning and also upsetting to us. The United States and we here at the State Department have spoken a lot about concerns about the treatment of LGBTI people in Chechnya. Some, as the person you had mentioned, went so far as to – well, I’m not even going to – I’m not going to repeat some of the things that he said because it was so horrific.

We have called on Russia to hold a federal investigation into that matter, and we have those conversations at the highest levels. Human rights is something that’s very important to us. We continue to speak about that from this position here at the podium, and part of my job is speaking on behalf of Secretary Tillerson and speaking on behalf of this department, and let me just reassure you that that is something that’s very important to us.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: China?

QUESTION: Russia?

MS NAUERT: Thank you. Hi.

QUESTION: Okay, thanks. So the meeting yesterday, afterwards we’re still hearing Russia making the threats about retaliation. Does the State Department feel that that’s imminent now that there isn’t a deal on these properties?

MS NAUERT: Well, these deals, so to speak, are going to take some time. The under secretary, Tom Shannon, had the meeting yesterday – it went on for quite some time – with Mr. Ryabkov. We were happy to have him come here to Washington to sit down with us to talk about those – some of those so-called irritants.

The conversation – we put out a readout this morning – was what – one that we considered – and this is what Mr. Shannon said himself – is that it was a forthright, tough, and deliberate conversation that reflected concerns on both of our parts, but also our commitment to a resolution.

So nothing is coming together anytime soon. I don’t have a timeline for you or anything, but those conversations will be continuing.

QUESTION: Well, so are you calling their bluff, in essence? They’ve been threatening to do the same to the U.S. for months?

MS NAUERT: It’s a hypothetical. I know that they have threatened a lot of things, and so I’m just not going to get into the various threats that people from around the world make.

QUESTION: So to wrap this up, how would you characterize the Secretary’s feeling on these properties? Is he – he’s open to giving them back with some conditions, or how would you describe it?

MS NAUERT: I wouldn’t characterize it that way, and --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: And look, one of the priorities here is – or the priority here is to get the United States and Russia to a place where they can have a good, decent, solid relationship so we can work together on areas of mutual cooperation, areas that are mutually important to both of our countries. One of them is Syria, for example, in that particular area in the southwest where there has been the ceasefire. That’s a smaller area of mutual cooperation. From that, we can build upon that and start to work toward other goals on other matters.

These conversations between Mr. Shannon and Mr. Ryabkov will continue. We’ve got a lot of stuff to talk about with that government, and so that’ll continue.

QUESTION: So did the U.S. present conditions?

MS NAUERT: I can’t get into the – all the details about what went on in that conversation, but I can say we’re continuing those conversations.

QUESTION: But just to be clear, is the Secretary open to giving them back?

MS NAUERT: That I don’t know. There are a lot of meetings that are taking place and those meetings will continue. We’re just not sure.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: So a growing number of lawmakers are saying that the administration should not return these properties, at least until the investigation into the meddling in the presidential election is completed. There are some members of Congress who are calling for even more punitive measures to be enacted. So I’m just wondering, is that something – is that advice that you guys are willing to take on, or do you see that there is a possibility of this specific issue of these two properties being returned before there is a conclusion to the investigation?

MS NAUERT: In terms of a timeline, I’m just not aware of any kind of specific timeline that we have. We don’t, in fact, have any kind of timeline. I know that members of Congress have sent letters to the Secretary and other people here in this building, and so we just gather those letters, take a look at them, and that’s then between the Secretary and those members of Congress.

QUESTION: But you don’t know if he has a position that is the same as those members of Congress? In other words, you don’t know if he is saying yes, a resolution ultimately will involve the Russians getting back the properties, but that’s not going to happen until --

MS NAUERT: As you know, we have hundreds of members of Congress who all have very different opinions on subject matters.

QUESTION: I don’t know of any member of Congress who’s actually saying give them back right now. Are they?

MS NAUERT: Well, my point is a lot of members of Congress all have different opinions, and so I’m not going to say that the Secretary shares the opinion of any one over the other.

QUESTION: Well, forget about, then, opinion. How about – the question then would be: Does the Secretary think that it would be inappropriate to return these two properties before the investigation into the election interference is over?

MS NAUERT: Again, that’s something that is in part taking place on Capitol Hill. I think the Secretary is stepping back and taking a look at this issue separately. One of the bigger overarching issues is we need to be able to get our relationship on a better path. As the Secretary talked about, it’s at a low point.

QUESTION: Last one: Do you know, have the Russians asked to go and visit or take a look at their properties to see --

MS NAUERT: Because it’s nice out, they want to get outside, they want to get out of D.C. and New York?

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Well, I don’t know. I was going to ask you to a briefing out there. I’m just wondering, have they asked to inspect these properties?

MS NAUERT: Not that I’m aware of. Not that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: But if we could --

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: -- if I could clarify this, please, the administration – the White House made an argument only days ago for why they’re open to giving these properties back. They laid out this argument. So by not going back to that argument, are you saying that the Secretary isn’t aligned --

MS NAUERT: I think our goal – and as you all can understand, diplomatic conversations can be sensitive matters, and sometimes I’m not able to give you and other people in the building aren’t able to give you all the details and information that you want. We want to preserve the ability to go back and speak with the Russians and do what we need to do to get our relationship on a better track, and part of that means looking for additional areas of cooperation. Part of that means trying to smooth out the differences in terms of some of the so-called irritants that we have with other nations.

QUESTION: But does the – so is the Secretary in agreement with the White House on that argument or not?

MS NAUERT: Michele, I think I’ve covered it, so let me just leave it there, okay? Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Hi. Hi.

QUESTION: On Ukraine.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Russian-backed rebels in east Ukraine have proclaimed the creation of a new state, and I’m not going to attempt to say it, but “Little Russia,” translated. Could you comment?

MS NAUERT: So here’s what we had heard: that the so-called separatists – and notice I call them “so-called separatists” – want to see a new state. That new state would be in place of Ukraine. That is something that’s certainly an area of concern to us, but I just don’t – beyond that, I don’t want to dignify it with a response.

QUESTION: Syria? Can we go to Syria?

QUESTION: And so, but you’re not dismissing it out of hand? You don’t think that that’s a good idea.

MS NAUERT: Pardon? I --

QUESTION: What if they wanted to call it, say, Centerville?

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) I mean --

QUESTION: Can we go to China?

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Can we go back to (inaudible) just for a second?

MS NAUERT: Yes. Hi, Dmitri.

QUESTION: Just for a second longer. It’s a slightly different subject.

MS NAUERT: Dmitri wants to know about Russia. Welcome back, Dmitri.

QUESTION: Thank you. I wanted to ask you something about your guidance, your readout of the meeting.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Why was it necessary to mention the – their intent to convene a new bilateral consultative commission on the New START? Up until very recently, both sides were stressing that the implementation of the New START was going on perfectly or very well despite all the differences and whatnot. Has any new problems arisen? Why was it necessary – why is it necessary to convene a commission? That’s part one.

And part two --

MS NAUERT: Okay, let me answer your first question first --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: -- because I’m not so good with multiple five-part questions here. So in terms of that, I know that Mr. Under Secretary Shannon looks forward to speaking with his Russian counterparts on possible areas of interest in other meetings coming up. I don’t have any specific meetings or dates or anything to announce at that time, but that’s one area where they could come up with additional talks to have.

Okay, second part.

QUESTION: Okay, and the other part was the strategic stability talks. That dialogue took place --

MS NAUERT: That would be – I would give you the same answer on that. I don’t have any specific meetings or dates or anything to provide you at that time, but we’re just going to keep an eye on that, and that’s something that I know we’re willing to have conversations about.

QUESTION: Is it like – is it on a regular basis or --

MS NAUERT: That I can’t comment on. I don’t want to get ahead of any possible conversations.

QUESTION: Can you take one on China/India?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay.

QUESTION: Syria?

MS NAUERT: Yes, sir. Hi, sir.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Thank you so much.

MS NAUERT: Tell me your name again?

QUESTION: Ali.

MS NAUERT: Ali, right. Sorry, thanks.

QUESTION: Ali from ARY News TV. The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom expressed grave concern on the situation of religious freedom and human rights in India, and especially about the killing of minorities for eating beef and Indian forces’ brutalities in held Kashmir. So they wanted to go to India, the U.S. commission – a panel of U.S. commission – but the Indian High Commission here denied their visa and said they wouldn’t – they won’t allow U.S. commission to go to India to monitor the actual situation there. So do you have anything to say on that?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of the specific subject that you are bringing out – up about people getting in trouble for eating beef, so let me look into that and get back to you.

QUESTION: I sent this question to your press team like day before yesterday.

MS NAUERT: Oh, perhaps you did. Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: That doesn’t necessarily mean that I see everything that comes into our press team.

QUESTION: I have one more question about --

MS NAUERT: Okay, last question. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: I have one more question. Thank you so much. There are so – many media reports in Pakistan about Dr. Afridi, the release of Dr. Afridi. So what kind of efforts and what kind of discussion with the Pakistan --

MS NAUERT: I haven’t had that conversation recently with the people who – our people here internally who have handled Pakistan. I’m certainly aware and familiar with Dr. Afridi’s case, and if we have anything new to bring you, I will certainly bring that to you, okay?

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Yemen?

MS NAUERT: Go ahead.

QUESTION: Israel?

QUESTION: Can we stay on India?

QUESTION: Yemen?

MS NAUERT: Hold on. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Can we stay on India?

MS NAUERT: Yes, hi.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Hi. Yulia Olhovskaya, Channel One Russia. Can I go back for one second to yesterday meeting of Ryabkov and Shannon? Do the U.S. have any conditions for return diplomatic property? (Inaudible.)

MS NAUERT: I think I’ve covered this. We’ve talked a lot about that and we have a lot of other people here with questions about the region, so let me just leave it at that. I know that Mr. Shannon looks forward to continuing those conversations.

QUESTION: Syria?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Sir, hi.

QUESTION: Yemen?

MS NAUERT: With the beard.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Hi, how are you? What’s your name?

QUESTION: My name is Grigory Dubovitsky. I’m from Russian news agency RIA Novosti.

MS NAUERT: How – wait, let’s just do a show of hands here. How many folks do we have from Russian media?

QUESTION: I guess three.

MS NAUERT: One, two, three. Okay, got it. All right.

QUESTION: So the a question about Syria.

MS NAUERT: See? Freedom of the press. (Laughter.) It’s a good thing, isn’t it?

QUESTION: Yes, it is.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: We love that. So welcome.

QUESTION: Okay. So my question is about Syria, that Mr. Ryabkov confirmed us that Russia and the United States may hold talks on a second ceasefires agreement for Syria.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, say that again.

QUESTION: Mr. Ryabkov said that Russia and the United States may hold talks on a second ceasefire agreement for Syria, so can you confirm it and provide more details if you have?

MS NAUERT: I can’t – I cannot confirm that that is something that’s a discussion that is underway. I know one of the priorities for the U.S. Government, in addition to coalition partners in Syria, is trying to obtain ceasefires and trying to get stability in the region, in certain parts of it where we think that that can take hold. Part of the reason we want to do that is to be able to get humanitarian assistance in that is so desperately needed by folks there. So we are working to do that. We are pleased so far with how the ceasefire has been working in southwestern Syria, and at some point hope, if and when the time is right, that that’s something that could potentially expand elsewhere. Okay? Okay.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Syria.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Hi, sir.

QUESTION: Yemen?

MS NAUERT: Yes?

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Tell me your name, please?

QUESTION: Jafar Jafari with Al Mayadeen TV. I’m not with the Russian --

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) You’re from India, sir? You’re from India? Yes, thank you.

QUESTION: A UN jet was carrying a team of journalists into Yemen, and they were prevented from entry by the Saudi coalition.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, who was bringing journalists into Yemen?

QUESTION: United Nations.

MS NAUERT: The UN was, okay.

QUESTION: Yes. The journalists were – they couldn’t enter. Does the U.S. have a policy of denying journalists access to troubled areas?

MS NAUERT: Certainly – as a general matter, certainly not. We --

QUESTION: Well, in this particular case.

MS NAUERT: The United States is incredibly open --

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: -- to the media. As you know, we’ve had media embed with our U.S. forces around the globe, in other places. I’m not familiar with the particular example that you brought up. I don’t know if these were U.S. reporters going into Yemen. That would be the Government of Yemen’s decision, I would think, whether or not to allow certain people in. But I’m just – I’m just not aware of that, so I don’t want to comment on that particular question, because I just don’t have all the details. Okay, thank you, sir.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Sir.

QUESTION: Syria? Syria?

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the – just the general situation in Yemen right now, particularly as it relates to cholera and famine?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. Goodness, we announced quite a bit of money that went out from USAID to Yemen to help with cholera and also food scarcity of resources, and that’s been another major concern of ours. I don’t have the cholera numbers in front of me, but there have been far too many deaths as a result of cholera. One of the problems in a country like Yemen is not so much where they don’t have food, but rather it’s because so much of that food and aid is prevented from getting to the people there because of the fighting on the ground. So one of the things that we do is we try to push for greater access to be able to get the Yemeni people the food that they – the food and supplies and healthcare that they need. And that would also include clean water, and that’s – kind of loops in cholera, but I can get – try to get you the latest numbers on those – on those unfortunate deaths if you’d like.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Can we go to Syria, please?

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Syria, please?

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay. I’m going to have to do last question.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS NAUERT: We got a lot of India questions today.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I am the first person who met you and gave you my card when you came and sat there as an observer.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: Okay. And the – China yesterday briefed a lot of diplomats about the condition – the border conditions with India, and including the U.S. diplomat. What did they share with you, if you can say, or what is the U.S. position now on the tense situation on the border between India and China? Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I know that that – thank you for your question and thank you for your kind welcome when I first came on board here. I know that the United States is concerned about the ongoing situation there. I know we believe that both parties, both sides should work together to try to come up with some better sort of arrangement for peace. And I’ll just leave it at that right now.

We got to go, guys. Thank you so much. Please take a moment to welcome our Iraqi friends. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you so much for coming to the United States. (Applause.) And my step mom is here in the audience, so lots of friends here.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Thank you, everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:05 p.m.)

DPB # 37

agreement

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - July 11, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





July 11, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



CHINA



ISIS/IRAQ/SYRIA



QATAR/REGION



SYRIA



RUSSIA



IRAQ



RUSSIA



NORTH KOREA/REGION



CHINA/REGION



INDIA/REGION



AFGHANISTAN



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



TURKEY


TRANSCRIPT:

2:45 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi, everyone. Welcome back to the State Department. Who’s back from the G20? All right. Well, welcome back. I hope you had a good trip over there.

I would like to welcome some students that we have in the back row. So, again, keep it clean when we have guests. They’re from Georgetown Day School. So welcome to the State Department, great to have you here today. And they’re studying international affairs. So thank you for coming.

I’ve got a few pieces of business to address first today, and the first is an announcement that we made over the weekend, but we’re really pleased with it, so I wanted to highlight it for you again. We’ve talked a lot about the four famines in Africa, and so I wanted to tell you about a USAID big chunk of change that has gone to that effect.

On Saturday, the United States announced nearly $639 million in additional humanitarian assistance to the millions of people affected by food insecurity and violence in South Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia, and also Yemen. With the new assistance, the United States is providing additional emergency food and nutrition assistance, life-saving medical care, improved sanitation, emergency shelter, and protection for civilians who have been affected by conflict, including those displaced internally, and also refugees.

The United States is also providing safe drinking water and supporting hygiene and health programs to treat and prevent disease outbreaks for all the four crises, including in Yemen, which is experiencing the world’s largest cholera outbreak. The United States is the largest single donor of humanitarian assistance around the world. The aid we provide represents the best of America’s generosity and its goodwill.

Today marks – actually, Sunday marked the two-year anniversary of the launch of China’s government nationwide campaign of intimidation against defense lawyers and also rights defenders. The State Department remains deeply concerned about the continued detention of at least seven defense lawyers and rights defenders and reports of their alleged torture and denial of access to independent legal counsel. We urge the Chinese authorities to immediately release those still in detention and drop the charges, and also allow them to reunite with their families. We urge the Chinese authorities to view lawyers and rights defenders as partners in strengthening Chinese society through the development of the rule of law.

And finally, I would like to announce something that’s taking place here at the State Department, a busier place than usual today. There is a meeting of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS that’s underway this week. Today, members of the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIS are in Washington for the first of three days of meetings on the next phase of the campaign. The meetings come at a key moment in the fight against ISIS, just as Mosul has been liberated. The coalition’s working groups on stabilization, support, counter-finance, foreign terror fighters, and counter-messaging are convening to evaluate the progress and also discuss how to build upon momentum that are achieved in each of those areas.

Tomorrow, representatives of the 72-member coalition will participate in a day of workshops to share the best practices to ensure that we maintain simultaneous pressure on ISIS across the globe. On Thursday, senior diplomats at the coalition’s small group will meet to build on the work of the previous day’s meetings. They’ll also talk about future priorities, coordinate efforts to continue setting ISIS on an irreversible path to defeat. Just as ISIS is working to survive, we are dedicated and committed to defeating ISIS.

And with that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Can we go to Qatar?

MS NAUERT: Sure, let’s start at Qatar. Hi.

QUESTION: Can you update us on the latest efforts by Secretary Tillerson? And I know we saw the statement that was issued, and he basically said – quoted to have said that the Qataris’ position is reasonable. Could you elaborate on that?

MS NAUERT: So the Secretary was in – I’m sorry, UAE – no, he was in – he’s based in Kuwait and has had a few series of trips. He went to Doha today to talk to the leaders there. And he will travel to Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and that’s where he’ll meet with the Saudis, the Emiratis, the Egyptians, and also the Bahraini officials.

An important piece of news to announce is that we worked out an arrangement with the Qataris separate from the Qatar feud, if you will. And this is something we’re pretty proud of, and this is something that the President has made a major initiative of his that was worked out at the Riyadh conference. And that is the Qataris and the United States have signed a memo of understanding between the United States and Qatar on counterterrorism financing. So some of the details I understand are still being worked out at this hour; the Secretary was pleased to be able to announce that piece of work today.

QUESTION: Do you see this as paving the way for Qatar to go back into the good stead of the other four countries that cut off relations with it?

MS NAUERT: We certainly hope so. We know that all of those countries, as we talked about in Riyadh, share the concern about ISIS, the global terror network, and they recognize that we are all stronger when we are working together and coordinating in the fight against ISIS. So we believe that this memo of agreement between the United States and Qatar is a good first start to get that underway.

Hey, Michelle.

QUESTION: Initially in this, what we heard from the Saudis was kind of take or leave it, here are our demands. So how would you say that through the course of the Secretary’s meetings the willingness level has changed, or hasn’t, among the other countries besides Qatar?

MS NAUERT: So I know that the countries and the Secretary are committed to trying to work this through and come to a resolution. It’s been more than a month now. We’ve continued to ask them to do that. I think those nations all understand the concern and the importance to work together to come to a resolution on this.

QUESTION: And Tillerson’s spokesperson during part of this trip had said, when he was talking to reporters, that there are no clean hands here. Was he talking about Saudi Arabia or what? Can you clarify that?

MS NAUERT: I think – I know what you’re referring to. I think when he referred to no clean hands what he was talking about – and I wasn’t there for this, but I think what he was talking about is that all parties can do a lot more to work together, that all of the nations have issues that they need to address and work together on. And I think that this new counterterrorism financing and funding initiative that the Secretary was able to announce today with the – his foreign – the foreign minister of Qatar is a good first place to start.

QUESTION: And when he said that some of those demands were just completely untenable but some could be workable, can you give a little more detail on what he was talking about?

MS NAUERT: So I’m not going to characterize any of the specific demands, but we know overall from taking a look at the initial lists and subsequent lists that some of the things would be harder for certain nations to do than others. Some of them would, frankly, not be workable for some of those nations. I’m not going to point out specifics. That’s for each of those nations to look at and highlight themselves. But we’re hoping that they will come to an agreement on this.

Hi.

QUESTION: Heather, State and Qatar have described this agreement that they signed today as a separate agreement to the process that had begun in Riyadh before this blockade began. But given that the most cited grievance that these countries have against Qatar is – has to do with terrorist financing, and this is a terrorist financing agreement, could you characterize this as linked or as a breakthrough to try to end this impasse?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think to highlight that the United States and Qatar have this agreement on terror financing sends a really good message to all of the nations that, hey look, we can get to this agreement on this, we can get to an agreement that terror financing is a major issue and a major concern. So I think that helps set a good example for the other nations that we hope that they will come to the table with us as well.

QUESTION: And there’s an expectation or a hope that Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Egypt, these other nations, will sign similar agreements with the United States?

MS NAUERT: That I’m not sure. I wouldn’t want to get ahead of the Secretary’s discussions because he has a lot of meetings ahead of him and a lot of hard work ahead as well.

Okay. Hi, Kel.

QUESTION: Hey, does Secretary – just to clarify – want other nations to sign onto it, considering that the Qatari foreign minister said that they are the first nation to sign onto this memorandum?

MS NAUERT: I’m not certain if this memorandum is going to be extended to the other nations. There could potentially be, but I don’t want to get ahead of the Secretary. I suppose there could be separate memorandums that would come of these conversations. But again, I just don’t want to get ahead of what those discussions might look like.

QUESTION: And when will we be getting the details of what was in this memorandum? It seems like it’s a bit unclear right now.

MS NAUERT: Well, this is all fresh. It’s all new. The President had asked the Secretary to go over there and personally handle this. So we’re just going to keep an eye on it, keep an eye on the situation, because it’s still developing.

Okay.

QUESTION: On Syria?

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Qatar?

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: No, let’s stay with Qatar. Are we done with Qatar?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay, let’s move on.

QUESTION: Yeah. Syria?

MS NAUERT: Hey, Josh. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, Heather. Is there going to be – is there any clarity so far on the monitoring of the Syrian ceasefire? Obviously, Lavrov said yesterday that it was going to be done with the United States and Jordan from a center in Amman. Do you have any more details on that?

MS NAUERT: Mr. Lavrov likes to talk a lot and get out ahead, I think, of some of the negotiations that are underway. That is all still being worked out. We are a little over two days into the ceasefire in that part of Syria. We’re pleased with that. We think it’s holding fairly well at this point. In terms of who is doing what, when, where, how, some of those details are still being worked out.

QUESTION: Is there a level of urgency in working that out? Because it seems like if you don’t have a monitoring or an enforcement mechanism of a ceasefire it sort of incentivizes people to break it, because who’s monitoring?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think the first objective was – and this is no small feat that the United States, that Jordan and Russia, were all able to work out an agreement to bring in a ceasefire in a separate, new area. This is aside from the Astana process which had the other zones. This is the de-escalation zone that is a fifth and separate region. So I think it’s a terrific feat that they were able to identify this region and call – agree to a ceasefire and allow that ceasefire, for the most part, to take hold.

So this is something that I know is important to get to the position where there are monitors, and who those monitors will be I don’t know at this point. I know we have folks in the region. I know that our special envoy to Syria is actively engaged in these conversations, so I anticipate we’ll get that information in the in the near future.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Do you think you might be able to provide a map or an outline of the specifics of the region, or just give more clarity on what we’re talking --

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure that we’ll be able to. That may be classified at this point. I can certainly look into that.

Okay.

QUESTION: And is there any assessment about – there was some flashpoints that happened in the last 24 hours in parts of the area that might have been considered the ceasefire or might not have --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- a regime offensive in Suwayda or – on the outskirts?

MS NAUERT: So my understanding is that is actually outside of the area where the ceasefire has been called or has been identified. Again, for the most part, this seems to be holding right now. I’m not going to say that there aren’t going to be skirmishes or things here and there, but so far, this is holding, and a pretty incredible feat that the United States, Russia, and Jordan were able to come to this.

Okay. Anything else on Syria?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Yeah. I got a quick follow-up. Are you concerned that this ceasefire would allow extremists from ISIS, from other groups – especially Jabhat al-Nusrah – to be funneled – to make all the way up to Idlib and even coming out of Mosul and Raqqa and going there, where they are going to congregate? Is that still --

MS NAUERT: I think --

QUESTION: Are these groups are still free targets? They don’t fall under the ceasefire?

MS NAUERT: This is still a fresh agreement, so we’re going to wait a little bit and let this agreement play out. We have a lot of folks who are in the region, a lot of coalition partners who care about trying to keep this ceasefire holding at this point, and then we’ll try to build on it from there.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Are you skeptical of Russia’s intentions here at this point, or would you say that the situation seems better than that this time?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think the Secretary and the President have talked about our difficulties in our relationship with Russia, that we remain at a low point but we’re looking for areas of agreement. I think when you find areas of agreement that you can work on, you start to build from somewhat of a point of confidence and comfort level. If we can get that initial building block in place, perhaps we could work on some – on the next step. I know one of the commitments we share at this point is not just this ceasefire but also allowing humanitarian access to get in. That’s badly needed. And so the hope is that we can get in humanitarian access and help the folks there in that area.

QUESTION: Would you say that the State Department stance at this point is optimistic, or is it not at that point yet?

MS NAUERT: I think optimism in a country that has seen a brutal regime, that has seen so much misery over six years – I think optimism is perhaps too strong of a word, but I think it is promising, in a certain sense, that we’ve been able to get this ceasefire underway. And for the most part it’s been able to hold so far, and we’ll keep building to do more.

Okay. Anything else left on Syria?

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: Yeah.

QUESTION: Syria.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Who had Syria?

QUESTION: Here.

MS NAUERT: Sir, hi.

QUESTION: Yeah. Is the deal sustainable without Iranian buy-in, and do you know if the negotiators are in contact at all with Iran?

MS NAUERT: I have no information on that whatsoever. Okay?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Syria. Yeah.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Miss, did you have something on Syria?

QUESTION: Yeah, a follow-up on Syria. I’m Tatiana Kalykova. I’m correspondent for Russian news agency Ria Novosti. I want to go back to previous statement of Mr. Tillerson on proposal to establish joint mechanism, and specifically that includes establishing no-fly zones in Syria. Is that something that we are going to see in the near future? Are you working on that with Russian counterparts, or for now it’s like just a proposal?

MS NAUERT: So I’m not going to get ahead of any of our diplomatic conversations that could be had. I think the focus today is on this ceasefire. We’re pleased to see that. We also have had some movement on – from the standpoint of meeting with the Russians, and that’s something I wanted to announce today, that Under Secretary Shannon will be meeting with the Russians, with his counterpart, here in Washington on Monday. So that was something that the Russians – we had had on the schedule with him previously and Russia had canceled that meeting, as you all know, in Saint Petersburg. Under Secretary Shannon has been hard at work, as we have been trying to find areas that we could deal with some of these so-called irritants, and that meeting’s set to happen here in Washington on Monday.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: Is that meeting an outgrowth of the discussions?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know. This is something, I believe, that – I know that Under Secretary Shannon – excuse me, that Mr. Shannon had had this conversation about a week and a half or so go, and I – so I think this is sort of as a result of that.

QUESTION: Is he meeting Ryabkov? Is Ryabkov coming over, or is it somebody else?

MS NAUERT: I believe it’s Ryabkov coming here to Washington.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on Syria?

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on the Shannon meeting?

QUESTION: On Russia.

QUESTION: Iraq.

QUESTION: Syria.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s go on over to Iraq. Hi, sir.

QUESTION: Okay. So the Pentagon issued a statement, which resonated what other U.S. officials from the State Department have said about the liberation of Mosul. It said we have to – we need to address the conditions that led to the rise of ISIS in Iraq. So I want to know whether the United States mission from now on will be to address those conditions in Iraq and what are those conditions.

MS NAUERT: I think our mission in Iraq – we’ll do what we can to support the Iraqi Government and the people of Iraq. We are not going to unilaterally decide what’s best for the Iraqi Government. We have had close cooperation with them and we are very, very pleased to see the liberation of Mosul. Let’s not forget it was not that long ago where the most horrific things on the part of ISIS were taking place in Mosul, where we saw the beheadings of civilians, where we saw the crucifixion of Christians, where in various parts of Iraq and Syria we’ve seen people burned in cages, we’ve seen people drown. So I think it’s a real welcome sight – not that the fight is over, but a welcome sight that Mosul has been liberated. Again, a tough fight ahead for the Iraqi Government, other governments in the area, coalition partners. That’s something that we’re addressing here in Washington. But we remain committed to that and also to the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Government.

QUESTION: One more question on the Amnesty International report. They have made some accusations against the coalition and the Iraqi forces, arguing that they might – war crimes might have been committed by the coalition and Iraqi forces in Mosul because --

MS NAUERT: I’m familiar with the Amnesty International report. And some would say let’s take a step back and take a look at this. The coalition and its forces do everything that they can to avoid civilian causalities. That’s something as Americans and I know the coalition as a whole takes very, very seriously. Let’s remember why we are engaged in this fight against ISIS. Let me remind you of something I just said – the beheadings of civilians, the beheadings of children, the crucifixion of Christians, the burning of the Jordanian pilot in the cage. All of these things – I can go on and on about the atrocities that have taken place in that region over a few numbers of years. So we will continue to take that fight to ISIS and continue to allow Iraqi civilians to come home. The United States, coalition partners, have had that win, if you will, but we know that it’s not over yet.

QUESTION: Have you looked at the findings, Amnesty’s findings?

MS NAUERT: I have not seen those findings myself. I know that they did not contact the Department of Defense or our coalition partners in putting together that report.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Let me go to that. Hi.

QUESTION: ISIS could not have controlled Mosul without support from at least some local elements. So my question is anyone – perhaps the Iraqis, perhaps you would know something about this – is anyone planning on establishing a mechanism for the victims of ISIS to seek justice, to hold accountable those who were involved in the terrible crimes that you’ve just described?

MS NAUERT: I know that the United States has continued to offer Iraq our support in doing what is needed to help them, to not only help stabilize the country but to help provide additional assistance. I believe that’s something that the Iraqi Government – I cannot speak for the Iraqi Government – could potentially be looking into themselves. But I think that’s something for the Iraqi Government to decide.

QUESTION: Would you be encouraging them to look into it?

MS NAUERT: Again, I’m not part of the diplomatic conversations that are underway. I’m not aware of any that are taking place about that specific issue. But I know just historically we would certainly support the government in what it needs to do to bring people to justice.

Okay. Anything else on Iraq? Iraq? Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Let’s – hi. How are you?

QUESTION: So can you provide any sort of update on the cyber framework that Secretary Tillerson announced on Friday? The President had described it as a cyber security unit, but the Secretary had used the term framework. So just sort of any details you can provide and whether or not it is happening.

MS NAUERT: So I know a lot of people like to pick apart the exact words that are used. Sarah Huckabee Sanders over at the White House addressed this issue yesterday, in which she gave a little bit more color about this. One of the things she said is that we recognize Russia as a cyber threat. We also recognize the need to have a conversation with our adversaries. And I think that sort of formulates what – part of what the President’s discussion was. She went on to say that the discussions may still take place over that particular issue that you mention, but that’s as far as we can really look ahead right now.

QUESTION: So it won’t be part of, for example, Under Secretary Shannon’s meeting next Monday?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. I know that this was a meeting that the under secretary has been trying to get on the books for quite some time. Again, it was canceled, as you all know, about three weeks ago or so, and so we’re pleased to have that meeting on the books.

QUESTION: And can you say – the Secretary was saying after that meeting as well that both presidents agreed, rightly, in his opinion, that we needed to move on from this issue of a cyber intrusion. Does that mean that there will be no sort of repercussions for Russia because of the meddling in the U.S. election?

MS NAUERT: Well, I’m not going to speak for the White House or the President, but I think Secretary Tillerson has been very clear about that, about – and that’s part of the reason that the Russian Government was asked to leave its dachas here in the United States --

QUESTION: So no --

MS NAUERT: -- because we knew that there were some activities taking place in those dachas that were not permitted under U.S. law.

QUESTION: But no further repercussions by this administration?

MS NAUERT: I can’t speak to what the White House could potentially be working on or not working on at that point.

QUESTION: So any support for the – I know you don’t want to comment on legislation --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but the sanctions bill, I know at least one senior administration official had expressed support for it. Is that the position now of the State Department?

MS NAUERT: Again, it’s – I don’t know which particular member of Congress you’re speaking about.

QUESTION: No, it was, I believe, Marc Lotter with the White House that said the administration would support it.

MS NAUERT: I see. Okay. Let me just refer you back to the White House on that one.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: On that same issue?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: China?

QUESTION: Different --

MS NAUERT: Dmitri, go ahead.

QUESTION: A couple on dachas.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Just a quick follow-up.

MS NAUERT: I know you must be so excited to talk about that. It’s summertime, you want your place back on the eastern shore of Maryland and New York. It’s hot here in D.C.

QUESTION: To be completely honest with you, I don’t want to touch that at all, but I have to.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I’m afraid I have to. The Russians essentially warned that they are prepared to retaliate. They still view it as a tit-for-tat situation. Thirty-five of Russian diplomats were thrown out last year, those two dachas were shut down, so they’re saying guys, we’re basically at the deadline, you need to make a decision, and we’re – I think we’re racing to go on a downward spiral again. Do you have a response to that?

MS NAUERT: What was – about – a downward spiral about what?

QUESTION: Yes, because the Russians are threatening to take – mirror similar --

MS NAUERT: I see what you mean, okay. Okay.

QUESTION: -- to retaliate.

MS NAUERT: I think – and I don’t mean to be cute in saying this, but we’re used to certain officials from the Russian Government making a lot of comments. So I’m not going to comment on any or speculate on any specific Russian actions, any specific Russian threats. It’s a hypothetical at this point. I just know that the under secretary is looking forward to sitting down with his counterpart and we’ll see where it goes from there.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Yeah.

QUESTION: Was that issue – the Russians have been making threats for, what, two months now about retaliating for the seizure of property. So to what extent was that discussed in the meeting with Putin?

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure. I’m not sure. I’m not aware whether or not that came up. I can certainly look into it for you, though, and I’m – but I’m not sure I’ll be able to get an answer.

QUESTION: Okay. And when you were just asked about any potential repercussions or more punishment for Russia’s cyber-meddling, you mentioned the dachas and the expulsions. Are you saying that Secretary Tillerson feels that that is an adequate response to what Russia did in the election?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know that I would characterize it that way. I think the Secretary has been clear --

QUESTION: I’m not sure if he has.

MS NAUERT: (Laughter.) Okay. I’ll disagree with you there politely --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: -- but I think the Secretary has been clear on his concerns about that, and we’ll leave it for Mr. Shannon and Mr. Ryabkov to have those conversations on Monday, and I’m not going to get ahead of those.

QUESTION: All right, thanks.

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Turkey, (inaudible).

MS NAUERT: Let’s switch regions now.

QUESTION: Turkey, (inaudible).

MS NAUERT: Okay. Let’s go over to North Korea now.

QUESTION: Thank you very much, Heather.

MS NAUERT: How are you? How are you?

QUESTION: Yeah. Does the U.S. have any update – sanctions against the North Korean such as secondary boycott?

MS NAUERT: Such as what?

QUESTION: Secondary boycott, like --

MS NAUERT: Ah, okay. One of the things Secretary Tillerson has talked about is we would be willing to – and I don’t say a lot about sanctions but I can say this because it is a general matter – we are willing to look at third-party sanctions and look at other nations and sanction them if they are involved in activities that help give money to the DPRK. A couple recent examples: There were sanctions issued against some Chinese entities last week. There was also – there were also some sanctions issued against – I believe it was a Russian corporation a week or 10 days ago or so. So the United States continues to look at those as ways to try to shut down the money that is illegally going to North Korea that we believe, we firmly believe that it goes to fund its illegal weapons programs and also – and that.

QUESTION: Do you have any information on the Six-Party representative talks in Singapore – U.S., South Korea, and Japan?

MS NAUERT: We announced last week that our Ambassador Yun was heading over there. I believe those talks are still underway at this point. I don’t have any additional information for you at this time.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Can we go to India, please?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Anything else on Asia?

QUESTION: Yes, follow-up --

MS NAUERT: Are you on Asia?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Okay, hi.

QUESTION: Same topic. The U.S., there have been reports, is circulating a draft resolution at the UN Security Council for additional sanctions on the DPRK. Do you have an update on how those discussions are going? And also, was it discussed in the meeting with President Xi and President Trump?

MS NAUERT: Okay. A couple things in terms of potential sanctions at the United Nations. I know that that is something that is a hot topic. A lot of people are talking about that right now. The sanctions are – I know it’s something that Ambassador Nikki Haley has touched on briefly about that. She has said any new potential sanctions or resolutions, I should say, should be proportionate to the new escalation that has been faced as a result of North Korea’s actions.

I hate to say this again, but I don’t want to get ahead of some of those diplomatic conversations that are going to take place at the United Nations. We’re going to be talking with the nations there and the members of the UN Security Council to see what is the best move yet. One thing I think is clear and that is the world is very concerned about the escalation in terms of the threat that the DPRK faces, not just with regard to the region, but with regard to the world.

Okay.

QUESTION: And then also one more on Liu Xiaobo’s condition. There have been reports that he is in critical condition. Are you concerned for his health, and also is the U.S. ready to accept him into the country to receive medical treatment?

MS NAUERT: So Liu Xiaobo, we’ve been following that case very closely. You’ve heard me talk about it here for the past few weeks. We continue to call on the Chinese authorities for his full parole and also for the release of his wife. At China’s invitation – and we were pleased to see this take place – U.S. and German medical experts were able to come and visit him and also visit his family. I understand that his wife, who had been under house arrest, was able to be with him at the hospital. We’re happy about that, however, we continue to call on China to release him so that he can receive medical treatment wherever he desires. If it’s in the United States, I think we would certainly welcome that. The State Department was involved in helping to get a U.S. doctor from MD Anderson to China to be able to take a look at him. I know the German – there was also a German doctor that was in attendance too. We would like for Mr. Liu to be able to make his own health choices about where he would like to go.

Okay. Anything else on China?

QUESTION: China?

QUESTION: One more question.

MS NAUERT: Okay, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, so I was wondering if you have a reaction to your counterpart at the Chinese foreign ministry. Spokesperson Geng rejected the idea that China has a responsibility for mitigating the North Korean nuclear crisis.

MS NAUERT: Hm. Okay, I’m not aware of those comments, but I know that we have been very clear that China has a unique kind of leverage with North Korea. About 90 percent or so of the trade that North Korea does is done with China. We’ve continued to have conversations with Chinese Government officials at all levels, at the highest levels, and we continue to say, “Thanks for what you’ve done, but we expect and we want you to do a whole lot more.” So we’ll continue to have those conversations.

QUESTION: Great, thank you. Would you mind just taking the question so you actually have a chance to read through the statement that he made? Could you follow up --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Could you follow up – once you actually have a chance to look at the statement, would you mind following up on that?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry, which – at which statement?

QUESTION: The Chinese spokesperson’s statement.

MS NAUERT: Okay. I mean, I can certainly see what I can do, but --

QUESTION: Sure. Well, you said you haven’t had a chance to look at it yet.

MS NAUERT: -- as I’m sure you’ve heard me here say before say --

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: -- every statement that comes out from every person around the globe, whether it’s a spokesperson or a foreign minister, I’m not going to comment on those things, okay?

QUESTION: Sure.

MS NAUERT: All right. Anything left on --

QUESTION: Change topic?

MS NAUERT: -- China or DPRK?

QUESTION: On India?

QUESTION: Can we --

MS NAUERT: Okay, we’ll go to India. Hi, sir. How are you?

QUESTION: Fine, thank you. Are you aware about the – do you know about the terrorist attack in Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir where seven pilgrims were killed – shot dead by terrorists yesterday?

MS NAUERT: That took place on July the 10th.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: That is what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: And yes, we are aware of that. We’re familiar with it, but the – we consider it to have been a terrorist attack in the state of Jammu and Kashmir in which seven religious pilgrims were killed. That’s of great concern to us. These were civilians, they were killed as they were exercising their right to worship, and that is in large part what makes this so reprehensible. That is a great concern to us. Our thoughts and prayers go out to those people and to their families as well. Our prayers are with the victims and those who were injured.

QUESTION: And do you know who were behind these attacks? The state police is saying the Lashkar-e Tayyiba from Pakistan were behind this attack.

MS NAUERT: Sir, I’m not aware of who may have been responsible or may not have been responsible for that.

QUESTION: Is there any cooperation between India and the U.S. on this terrorist attack?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay, thank you. Hi, sir.

QUESTION: Thank you. This is Jahanzaib Ali from ARY News TV Pakistan. I just want to ask a question about some Afghanistan. As we all know that you are going to announce, the current administration is going to announce, the new Afghan policy. So what kind of designation you are giving to the Afghan Taliban in that policy, because the Obama administration, in this last two or three tenure, they stopped calling Afghan Taliban as terrorists. So what kind of designation you are giving to the Taliban in the new Afghan policy?

MS NAUERT: Well, our Afghan policy review is still underway. That has not been announced just yet. So they are looking at – our officials who are involved in that Afghan policy review, which goes from the State Department to the Department of Defense to the National Security Advisor and his team, and plenty others, I’m sure, that I’m just not mentioning right now. So that review is underway. That review continues. I’m not going to get ahead of what’s in that review. We’ll just have to wait and see what comes out of it.

QUESTION: But are they terrorists or not – the Afghan Taliban?

MS NAUERT: Sir, we’re going to wait for that review to take place, okay? Okay. Sir, I --

QUESTION: Is there any update on kidnapped American citizens in Afghanistan?

MS NAUERT: And who exactly are you referring to?

QUESTION: Reffing to? I don’t understand what you’re saying.

MS NAUERT: Okay. So you asked me about – about who kidnapped?

QUESTION: Yeah, American citizens kidnapped in Afghanistan. Is there any update on that?

MS NAUERT: Let me get back with you on that and let me see what I have, okay?

QUESTION: Can we go to Turkey?

QUESTION: Mm-hmm. I have a few more question if you allow me.

MS NAUERT: Pardon me, sir?

QUESTION: I have --

MS NAUERT: Let me move on. We have a lot of other people, and so we’ve got a lot of questions. Okay?

QUESTION: A quick question on the Palestinian-Israeli issue really quick?

MS NAUERT: Sure.

QUESTION: Today there was a high-level meeting in Jerusalem between Mr. Jason Greenblatt and the Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat, and also present was Ambassador David Friedman along with General Consul Donald Blome. Now, in the past, the meetings with the Palestinians did not include the American ambassador to Israel. It’s been like a protocol. Has there been, in your view, a downgrading of your view of the Palestinian Authority, or is this just something – because it has not been done since, like the ’90s?

MS NAUERT: So I would say it’s, in fact, the opposite, not a downgrading but perhaps even an upgrading.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: The fact that our U.S. ambassador would be included in this meeting and that the Palestinians, as I understand it, would welcome him into this meeting --

QUESTION: Right, right.

MS NAUERT: -- shows a step forward in terms of our cooperation.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: We’re very pleased to have the ambassador’s expertise in this. And I think it raises the level and indicates just how important it is for this administration to try to come to some sort of peace agreement. As I’ve said many times before --

QUESTION: Right. Sure.

MS NAUERT: -- and I’ll just throw this out one more time --

QUESTION: I --

MS NAUERT: -- we know that that process is not going to be easy.

QUESTION: I understand.

MS NAUERT: We know the process is going to be difficult. We know that both sides are going to have to compromise. But I think this is a good step and that we’ll continue to have additional meetings.

QUESTION: Because in the past there was the consul general who basically behaved as or conducted himself as an ambassador to the Palestinians. So is this changing now?

MS NAUERT: Said, I don’t know why you want to get into the bureaucracy and the diplo-speak of all of this, but I see it as a positive thing that the ambassador is there. It does – I don’t really think it matters if that position had not been there at the meetings. What matters is the Palestinians, as I understand it, they welcomed him --

QUESTION: Right, right. Yeah.

MS NAUERT: -- and that he was a part of that meeting, and I think that really underscores the importance that this administration is putting on that issue.

We’re still hopeful, okay? We’re not giving up yet.

QUESTION: Palestinian follow-up questions?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Last one.

QUESTION: Last week, AP asked a question about the difference between restrained and unrestrained settlements, and the AP reporter specifically asked about whether the location of the settlement differentiated between restrained, which would be somewhat acceptable, versus unstrained, unacceptable. So my question is you said you’d follow up on that.

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Do you believe that settlements on the Palestinian side of the barrier, that would be unrestrained, and on its – and within the settlement blocs that would be restrained? Or how do you differentiate in terms of location?

MS NAUERT: I think that’s something that is still under review. As you know, Mr. Greenblatt in the region, Mr. Kushner has made many trips there. And so I’m just going to defer to them on that issue for right now. Okay?

QUESTION: Turkey?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Last thing. Turkey, yes.

QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday, Washington Post had an editorial titled “Mr. Tillerson’s betrayal of democratic ideals” with regards to Turkey visit, and basically argued that Mr. Tillerson went there but did not mention any of the human right issues, including press freedom and all the other issues. And this is the second time Mr. Tillerson went to Turkey and did not meet again with the opposition figures. What’s your comment on this criticism?

MS NAUERT: Well, first – first regarding the Secretary’s schedule, he has had an absolute whirlwind of a week from the G20 to then heading over to Ukraine in Kyiv to address the ongoing issues there, and then to Turkey for a short stop, in which he was very busy on that stop, and then now handling the GCC and the Qatar resolution of that dispute. So he’s had an awful lot going on.

We have continued, from this podium and through our statements and elsewhere and in conversations at the highest level, to have expressed our concerns with what we see as certain areas of concern – human rights violations for example, mass imprisonment of people in Turkey. We continue to raise those concerns with the Government of Turkey, and that has simply not changed. Okay?

QUESTION: So you are saying that if there was more days, Mr. Tillerson would have met with the opposition figures? It is not a policy issue, but it was there was no time for that meeting?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have the Secretary’s schedule in front of me, but I know it was a tight schedule. I know that he has had an awful lot on his plate. I would go back to our previous statements where we have expressed, in Turkey as well as other nations around the world, expressed our great concerns about human rights and so forth. And so that has not changed. The Secretary has been clear about that.

Guys, we have to leave it there. Thank you.

QUESTION: Did he mention those concerns in his conversation with the president?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have a readout of that meeting. But if I can get something for you, I will.

QUESTION: Thanks.

QUESTION: Great.

MS NAUERT: Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 3:24 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - June 27, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





June 27, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

INDIA



DEPARTMENT



RUSSIA/SYRIA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



QATAR/KUWAIT



IRAQ



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:18 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: And if anyone has any additional follow-up questions regarding the TIP Report, we can try to collect those and get back with you – more information.

Good afternoon again. The – I want to start with a little bit about the Indian prime minister and the visit here yesterday. The Indian Prime Minister Modi departed Washington last night after a successful trip to Washington. He went to the White House, as you all know, at the invitation of President Trump. The President said yesterday, quote, “The relationship between India and the United State has never been stronger and has never been better.”

Secretary Tillerson met with Prime Minister Modi yesterday morning. The two talked about ways to further strengthen our cooperation, particularly in the areas of counterterrorism, defense, and also trade. The Secretary reaffirmed the administration’s support for India’s role in – as the leading security provider in the Indo-Pacific region. He also noted that he looks forward to working even more closely with India on shared regional and global priorities, including North Korea. So we thank Prime Minister Modi for coming to Washington.

With that, I’ll take your questions.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Matt.

QUESTION: Let’s start with the Supreme Court order from yesterday.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I realize that you have 72 hours to actually implement it, and we’re only just a little over 24 hours into it, and so I presume that there’s still – people are still working on --

MS NAUERT: Good math for a reporter.

QUESTION: -- implementation. Yeah. But I couldn’t subtract – I couldn’t tell you --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: I don’t know how many hours are left. (Laughter.) But what is your understanding of what – is the department going to set out a list of criteria for what constitutes a bona fide relationship with an American entity or person, as the court has said?

MS NAUERT: So a lot of talk and a lot of questions about this term “bona fide,” and that was something that actually came from this Supreme Court. So as you mention – as you correctly mention, we have a couple days still to work this out and get more information. So we will be looking to the Department of Justice to get more clarification on what a bona fide relationship will be.

QUESTION: Right. But do you expect that you will lay – that you, in your guidance to visa-issuing posts, will be laying out, okay, like a second cousin twice removed is not bona fide or is bona fide, or a hotel reservation is a bona fide --

MS NAUERT: I would anticipate that we would have to give, certainly, some degree of explanation and a definition to our folks who are handling this overseas. Exactly what that terminology will look like, that we don’t know yet, so that’s why we’ll continue to chat with the Department of Justice and our folks over there. People here are hard at work with Department of Justice and also I believe Homeland Security to try to figure out exactly what this term “bona fide” should mean and will mean, and then we’ll get that information out to our folks across the world.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you have any idea of the time? I mean, could – I realize you have until Thursday.

MS NAURT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But could it come earlier? I mean --

MS NAUERT: This is obviously an important matter a big matter, and everybody wants to get this right. They want to see this implemented in an orderly fashion, and so in doing that I think they’ll probably take their time – as much time as they have – to make sure they get it right so that we can get that information and then get that out to our folks overseas. And we know that our people at the State Department have a lot of questions about this as well, legitimate questions, just as all of you do too.

QUESTION: So who’s --

MS NAUERT: Hi.

QUESTION: I mean, at the point of entry, how is it enforced? Because the first time around it caused a great deal of chaos, if you remember. Now how is it going to be enforced? Is it left to the discretion of the customs officer or the immigration officer at the point of entry?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I think some of that we just don’t know yet. We need additional guidance from the Department of Justice. So some of these questions – important questions that you all have – I’m just not going to be able to answer today, because this is all still in flux and the lawyers are going through it. And lawyers get involved and they like to go through all the language and all the words, so some of that I’m just going to have to wait until they can give us greater guidance on that.

Hi, Felicia. Hi.

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS NAUERT: And let’s stay on this – the executive order before we go over to other --

QUESTION: Oh. Then – okay, then come back to me later.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Hi, Michele.

QUESTION: So I don’t know how – what the scope is of what you do know, but in terms of refugees coming in and this relationship, if they’ve had contact with a resettlement agency or a church group or something, are you prepared to treat that as a bona fide relationship? Like – or is that one of the things you haven’t hashed out yet?

MS NAUERT: So a couple things. Bona fide relationship – we don’t have a definition here at the State Department for that yet. None of the agencies has that definition just yet. That we will be working to get; that I anticipate will take a couple days to get that. However, I can tell you in terms of refugees who are already slated to be coming here, we have been in touch with them. By that I mean we have advised our refugee resettlement partners overseas that they should currently proceed with the resettlement of refugees who are scheduled to travel to the United States through July the 6th. Beyond July the 6th, we are not totally certain how that will work because, again, this is in flux, this is in progress, this is a new development as the Supreme Court just spoke to this yesterday.

There is a number of 50,000, as you all know – that is the 50,000 cap. We expect to reach that cap within the next week or so. We are somewhere in the neighborhood of close to 49,000 – not exactly 49,000 but something close to that, so --

QUESTION: You know that the ruling addresses that cap and says that it – for certain people with that relationship, it would go beyond 50,000.

MS NAUERT: Correct. So refugees with bona fide ties – which we’re still working on that definition – will not be subject to that cap, but I just wanted to mention that and lay that out about the 50,000 arrivals.

Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: I believe the number – I think you just hit – you have hit 49,000 just in – like in the last two hours.

MS NAUERT: In the last couple – okay. Good, Matt. (Laughter.)

Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: When you do define sort of what a bona fide relationship is, is that something --

MS NAUERT: Again, that won’t be our definition. We’ll be working with the Department of Justice. They’ll make that designation and determination, and then we’ll follow through with it.

QUESTION: Sure. In terms of, like, informing the consular officers that, of course, we would be – we’d expect that not to happen, but in terms of also publicizing to potential immigrants, people who are applying for visas, is that something that you plan to make public so that they don’t kind of spend the money or whatever it might be to make the application?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. One thing I think that the State Department is good at doing is putting up lots of stuff on the website, but also just getting information out to the general public. We want travelers or prospective travelers to know exactly what they may or may not be facing, so we’ll get that information out.

QUESTION: So does the State Department share the concerns of three justices that this could be a burden and a problem for the State Department?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that. Okay. Anything else on this matter?

Laurie, do you have something on the EO? We’re done with EO. Okay. Let’s go on to something else then. Okay.

QUESTION: Syria?

QUESTION: Qatar?

MS NAUERT: Sure. Let’s go on to Syria.

QUESTION: So the Russians put out a readout of a call yesterday between Secretary Tillerson and Foreign Minister Lavrov. In the Russian version of the call it says that they discussed deterring the use of chemical weapons. Did the Secretary --

MS NAUERT: Their discuss – the what?

QUESTION: Deterring the use of chemical weapons --

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: -- in Syria. Did the Secretary share the information that was shared with us last night, that they had – that the U.S. had detected preparations at the site? And did the Secretary warn Foreign Minister Lavrov about that or ask them to press the Syrians not to do that?

MS NAUERT: Well, I can confirm that Secretary Tillerson spoke yesterday with his counterpart, with Mr. Lavrov, the foreign minister there. As you know, they talk about things regularly. They began their dialogue in Moscow and I believe it was March. They met here about a month ago or so. And then, of course, they’ve had subsequent phone conversations, such as the one last evening.

Secretary Tillerson is not putting out a full play-by-play of that conversation. We know that the Russians have put out what they consider to be their version, so I’m not going to get into a tit for tat about what we think they said or what they claim they said – claim was said in that conversation. But the Secretary has made his concerns clear in the past and continues to do so with regard to Russia.

QUESTION: In light of the statement that the White House put out last night, it seems like a fair question to ask if --

MS NAUERT: Oh, I’m not – you can ask me anything you want. I’m not saying it’s not – (laughter) --

QUESTION: But you’re not going to say anything specifically about chemical weapons?

MS NAUERT: No.

QUESTION: There’s a sparrow carrying a one-pound coconut. Did you --

MS NAUERT: What? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Are you saying that you – are you saying that you dispute the Russian characterization?

MS NAUERT: No. I’m just – I’m not going to get into a tit for tat. The Russians will often put out information, and they tend to mischaracterize things sometimes, and so I’m not going to get into going back and forth with them about what was said in this conversation. Secretary Tillerson is always clear with the Russians about how we feel about certain things, and the Secretary prefers to conduct a lot of his diplomacy in private in those conversations, because he believes that we can be most effective that way.

Okay, John.

QUESTION: Heather, can I --

QUESTION: There were some reports that the White House statement about the Syria chemical weapons attack took some policy experts at the State Department by surprise. Is that true? Was the State Department fully read in on this?

MS NAUERT: So the Secretary, as you know, was at the White House yesterday. He met with the President, also a group meeting with the President’s national security team, and that’s when this conversation was all had about that statement. So they were all informed and aware of that statement. In terms of who exactly that filtered down to at the State Department, I’m not going to get into our internal conversations. But the Secretary was aware of it; folks here were aware of it, and that’s what’s important and that’s what matters.

Okay.

QUESTION: So the sequence of time, that the Tillerson-Lavrov call came before the statement made by the White House, right?

MS NAUERT: I believe – that’s a good question. I believe the Secretary’s call with Foreign Minister Lavrov was in the morning. I can double check on that and get back with you, but yes – okay. Yeah, it was in the morning.

QUESTION: So the warning may not have come as a result of that conversation.

MS NAUERT: Again, I just don’t know, but the call was – I’m getting the nod over here – it was, in fact, in the morning.

Sir, hi. How are you? Yes.

QUESTION: There is clearly a difference of opinion or – I don’t know – strong disagreement, whatever you might want to call that, between Russia and the United States over this matter. The Syrians themselves claim that there is no preparation underway for any chemical weapons attack. Russia seems to be agreeing with them.

MS NAUERT: Wait. Hold on. Are we supposed to buy what the Syrians are saying, that there are no chemical weapons preparations underway --

QUESTION: This is not my question.

MS NAUERT: -- because in the past, we know that they have killed their own people, which include women and children. So if they say that they’re not making any preparations, I’m not certain that we’re going to buy that. But go ahead.

QUESTION: Well, there is no agreement on that either. There --

MS NAUERT: Pardon me?

QUESTION: There is no agreement on that either. There was no --

QUESTION: Get to your question.

QUESTION: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Just what’s the question?

MS NAUERT: Go ahead, sir. Please.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you something else.

MS NAUERT: Yes. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you if there is a follow – if there is an intent to follow up on that between Secretary --

MS NAUERT: On which? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: On the discussion on Syria and the alleged plans for chemical attack between Secretary Tillerson and Minister Lavrov.

MS NAUERT: You mean – are – do you mean that when the statement was put out last evening, that the United States is concerned about Syria and preparations that we believe are underway for a chemical weapons attack? Your question is will there be additional conversations about that?

QUESTION: Yeah, something like that.

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any additional calls or any information to read out. This is something that the United States Government remains very concerned about. I’m just not aware of any subsequent conversations that are scheduled just yet.

QUESTION: Can you – did – I know you don’t want to get into the details, but is there any effort to get the Shannon-Ryabkov meetings channel back open again? And is that something that --

MS NAUERT: We would regard that conversation as a very important conversation to be had. You all have heard it here that our relationship with the Russian Government is at a low point right now and we would like to fix that so we can find areas of common interests, such as the fight against ISIS, so that we can find those areas of common interest and work on those fully together. I know we would like to resume those conversations with the Russians about that. I don’t have any meetings or any trips to read out about that, but I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: No, I’m just wondering if there’s something the Secretary talked to Foreign Minister Lavrov about, if there’s something that – among the menu of agenda that they have, if –

MS NAUERT: I know we talked about a lot of mutual areas of concern. Regarding rescheduling that meeting, that I just don’t know. Sorry.

Anything else on Russia right now? Syria/Russia?

QUESTION: Iraq.

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Russia/Syria?

QUESTION: Syria?

MS NAUERT: Hi. How are you?

QUESTION: Do you guys have any evidence to share with us about this potential preparation for the use of chemical weapons? Because that wasn’t actually laid out.

MS NAUERT: Right, and nor would that be laid out, because that would be considered an intelligence matter. So as you all are aware, there are a lot of these things that will pop up sometimes that we just can’t get into the details about this, but this has obviously gotten the attention of the United States Government at the highest level.

QUESTION: So could the activity have perhaps been for some other reason than a chemical weapons attack preparation?

MS NAUERT: Such as?

QUESTION: Something that they do at the base or – I mean, is that a possibility?

MS NAUERT: I would say that that’s a hypothetical question. We know from past experience that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on its own people, so that obviously remains a very large concern for us in the future.

QUESTION: I just want to make a point of clarification.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: When you guys believe that it’s in your interests, you do put out what you say is evidence or proof of things that involve intelligence, and it happened from this podium not that long ago with the crematorium that you guys said was being built at the prison.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: So it’s not a blanket “we never discuss intelligence,” right?

MS NAUERT: Matt Lee, I’m not going to – I’m not going to get into that one with you, but this is a very serious and grave matter, and when you have the President involved and his national security team and the Secretary involved as well, I’d say that’s a serious issue.

Okay, anything else on this? Hi, how are you?

QUESTION: Just a quick clarifying question.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Inaudible), like is it 24 hours?

QUESTION: Go ahead. Let him go ahead.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: The preparation, the preparation. Is it like 24-hour preparation, maybe 48 hours, and then they stand back or something --

MS NAUERT: I don’t have the answer to that question. The White House may be able to give you more on that, or perhaps the Department of Defense or another agency, but – or department, rather – but I just can’t get into that and I don’t have the answer to that question.

QUESTION: Just to clarify, Mr. Assad was also seen photographed with the top Russian general in Syria within the last 24 hours or so. Do you know if the Russians – are we aware if the Russians were aware about these preparations as well?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that.

QUESTION: We don’t have any intel saying one way or another?

MS NAUERT: I just can’t get into any of the intelligence, but I’m not personally aware of that.

Okay. Anything else on Russia/Syria?

QUESTION: Iraq?

MS NAUERT: Hold on. Russia/Syria?

QUESTION: Here.

MS NAUERT: Okay, who’s got it? Sir, in the back.

QUESTION: Yeah. So Ambassador Haley said today that they would blame Iran, Russia, and Syria if chemical weapons were again – what does it mean to blame these countries? How would the U.S. hold them accountable in the event of another strike?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. intend on militarily striking Iran or Russia in the event of a chemical weapons attack?

MS NAUERT: Okay. Your third question I can’t answer; that’s a Department of Defense matter, and then that’s also a hypothetical. In terms of the first question, which is why would we – why would we look to Syria and Iran? Was that the part?

QUESTION: How – what does it mean to blame them?

MS NAUERT: Well, we’ve seen – all we have to do is look to the past, right, and we have seen as the Syrian regime back in 2015 was on the verge of collapsing – who came in to help save the Syrian regime? Who came in? Russia came in. And that is exactly why we are today – we, meaning the world – in the place that Syria is. Russia came in, helped bolster up Syrian forces, and we have seen the death, the devastation, the destruction that has taken place ever since.

So when we say Russia would be held responsible, we believe that they play a role in this as well. They have a lot of influence with the Assad regime, and we have consistently called upon them to use their influence with the Assad regime to stop this kind of activity.

QUESTION: Just on the --

MS NAUERT: John, hi.

QUESTION: Yeah, but her remarks that any attacks on the Syrian people will be blamed on the – Assad and the Russians.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Why not wait to find out? This is obviously a complex war --

MS NAUERT: Right.

QUESTION: -- with a number of actors --

MS NAUERT: Yeah, you’re right.

QUESTION: -- including ISIS. It seems like a rather un-nuanced comment. Wouldn’t you find out who exactly was responsible before blaming?

MS NAUERT: I can’t get too much into what Ambassador Haley said on the Hill today. I don’t have all of her comments in front of me, so I’d just have to refer you to the USUN for additional clarification on what she meant.

QUESTION: Well, she actually said that last night in a tweet.

MS NAUERT: Okay, okay.

QUESTION: As well as saying it again on the Hill.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Can you not – are you --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Wouldn’t – I mean, the State Department would and the United States Government would look to find out and make sure it had evidence of who was exactly responsible, right, before issuing a blanket blame for attacks on the Syrian people, right?

MS NAUERT: I think her comments stand for themselves, okay?

QUESTION: Sorry, does that mean that you’re not going to answer any questions about what she said on the Hill today? Because I got one.

MS NAUERT: Oh, I know you do. I know you do. Go right ahead. Why don’t you ask that question? I’m going to do my level best because --

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: -- I was not aware of – and I know what you’re getting at – well, I’ll let you go ahead and ask and we’ll go there – from there. Go right ahead.

QUESTION: So Ambassador Haley said that it was a matter of U.S. policy to oppose Palestinians for UN positions, and she did this in answering questions about the reason that you guys blocked Salam Fayyad from becoming the representative for Libya. Is that correct? Because if it’s true, it sounds as though it’s discriminatory.

MS NAUERT: I am working to get Ambassador Haley’s full comments in front of me. I just learned of those comments as I was walking into the briefing room, so didn’t have a full amount of time to be able to look into exactly what she said and what was intended by that. So some of this, as you all know, is developing. And when it’s developing, I know you want answers right away. I understand that. I’m not always going to be able to give you answers. I’d rather be right than be fast. We will take a close look at her comments. We will work to determine exactly what Ambassador Haley meant.

But I can tell you this: Ambassador Haley talked about this back in February when the United States expressed its objection to the appointment of Mr. Fayyad as the UN’s envoy to Libya. That’s what we’re talking about. We expressed that – she expressed that again in her Hill testimony, and she’s talked about this a lot. She believes that the United Nations and many believe that the United Nations needs to be reformed, that for far too long the United Nations has been unfairly biased in favor of the Palestinian Authority to the detriment of our allies in Israel. I know that’s a concern of hers. She’s talked about that a lot. She’s talked about reforming the United Nations. But in terms of her comments, I’m just going to need a little bit of time to take a closer look.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, let me just add one on there.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: First of all, I don’t understand how this is in any way biased against Israel to appoint a well-known, respected financial guy and diplomat to be the envoy to Libya. I don’t see how that has anything to do with bias against Israel at all.

But secondly, I mean, she said that until Palestine is a state that this is the policy. So I’m just curious, do you have – if this is a policy, does it also apply to the Vatican? Because the Palestinians right now have the same status at the UN as the Vatican does. So if you’re going to be consistent about this, then you would oppose any representative of the Holy See taking a UN position (inaudible), so that’s --

MS NAUERT: Matt, I’m just not going to get into – again, to characterizing that right now. I understand your question. I understand your concerns. Let me get some additional information. And anybody who has questions, I will do my level best to get you the answers, okay?

QUESTION: Okay. Can we --

QUESTION: About Qatar?

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: And a couple on the Palestinians.

MS NAUERT: Okay, just a couple more questions. Go ahead. Wait --

QUESTION: Yeah, very quickly.

MS NAUERT: Okay, Said.

QUESTION: By Israeli press accounts, the meeting between Mr. Kushner and Mahmoud Abbas went --

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- did not go very well. And they’re saying that, basically, the administration is going to pull out of any ongoing process or potential process. Do you have any comment on that?

MS NAUERT: I do. This is something that I was involved with and on the phone with – I was not there, but on the phone with over the weekend, hearing from some of the folks who had been traveling with Mr. Kushner and Mr. Greenblatt as well. And that’s just false. The President has made Israeli-Palestinian peace one of his top priorities. You know that. We’ve talked about that.

We understand and recognize that this is not going to be a one-shot deal. It’s not going to be handled in one meeting or one trip. It is no surprise also that some meetings and conversations may be a little bit more difficult than others. Some will be more challenging. The President has said himself that it is not going to be an easy process, that both sides – the Israelis and the Palestinians – will have to give a bit in order to be able to get to a peaceful arrangement, which we hope to see. But we are not pulling out in any way, shape, or form of this as being one of our priorities. Okay?

Qatar, okay.

QUESTION: Okay. So about a week ago, you said we’re left with a simple question: Were the actions of the other countries versus Qatar really about their concerns regarding Qatar’s alleged support for terrorism, or were they about the long-simmering grievances between them and the GCC countries? So now that you’ve seen the list of demands --

MS NAUERT: I can’t believe that was only a week ago. Doesn’t that feel like it was a month ago? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I guess.

MS NAUERT: It does, yeah.

QUESTION: So now that you’ve seen the list of demands, do you have any more light on what the answer to that question is?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. The only thing I can say about the exact demands – because I don’t want to characterize the demands – but some of them will be difficult for Qatar to incorporate and to try to adhere to. That’s as far as I’m going to go in saying that. We --

QUESTION: Can you say which ones?

MS NAUERT: No, I can’t. But some of them – some of them will be challenging for that country.

QUESTION: So what would you say the goal is of the meetings today?

MS NAUERT: So the Secretary will have two meetings today. I’m not sure if you’re aware of both of them. But he’ll meet with the foreign minister of Qatar and then he’ll meet with the foreign minister of Kuwait. And Kuwait has really done a lot of hard work in terms of trying to bring the nations together so that they can come to an – so that they can come to some sort of agreement.

We continue to call on those countries to work together and work this out, and this process is not over yet. They will be having these conversations, we certainly know, for the rest of the week, if not longer than that. And we will – we stand by in order to help facilitate some of these conversations.

QUESTION: But there’s not a set goal, a specific goal for the meetings today, especially with Qatar, like to finalize a response or something like that?

MS NAUERT: Not that I am aware of. This meeting starts in 20-some minutes, and so I’m going to have to head up there so I can go into that bilateral meeting. But if there’s something that I can share with you, I certainly will.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: I get that you don’t want to characterize the demands as – but when you say that you realize that some of them will be difficult for Qatar to meet, that implies that you think that they should meet them.

MS NAUERT: I don’t think so.

QUESTION: No?

MS NAUERT: No.

QUESTION: So you think that there’s a way – there’s some kind of middle ground, there’s room for negotiation – not with you guys, but between the parties – so that maybe some or parts of some are completed and maybe other parts are not?

MS NAUERT: These nations are going to have to work out their disagreements. I mean, we’ve talked about how a lot of these are long-simmering tensions. We believe that they’re going to have to work them out. They’re best worked out with the countries themselves. We are pleased and happy that Kuwait has stepped in to help be a mediator of sorts, and we’re happy to stand by and assist as we can. But we still feel that they can work them out themselves.

QUESTION: But you don’t necessarily think that they have to be – all of them have to be met as was delivered in that statement?

MS NAUERT: Matt, that’s for the countries to work out. That’s not for me to say, and I don’t know that that’s for the State Department to weigh in at that level, because ultimately, these parties have to live with the decisions and the agreements that they make.

Okay, last question. Laurie.

QUESTION: Here. Yesterday, Iraqi Prime Minister Abadi announced that ISIS defeat was close at hand. And so what are your plans – how is the liberation of Mosul – once it’s liberated, which will be soon – how is that going to change what you’re doing in Iraq? What are your plans for the future of that area?

MS NAUERT: Well, they wouldn’t be our plans for the future of the area; it would be the Iraqi Government’s plans. There is a Government of Iraq, so the Government of Iraq can decide how they want to govern themselves and what will take place in – certainly in certain areas. Our focus right now is on the liberation of Mosul. The Iraqi prime minister talked about how he believes that this will be done sooner rather than later. I’m not going to characterize a timeline. Our U.S. forces and coalition partners and the Iraqi Government are out there hard at work to try to get ISIS out of the remaining parts of Mosul. There is a lot of work left to be done, there’s also – we have also had some successes – and when I say “we,” I mean the Iraqis, coalition, and the United States Government – in bringing a lot of people back to Mosul in the safer parts where we’ve gotten ISIS out, and now some of those people have been able to come back in. I think the latest numbers are somewhere around 300,000, but Matt can probably --

QUESTION: Nope, I don’t know that one.

MS NAUERT: Matt can probably chime in better on those numbers. So the priorities in those areas, working with the Government of Iraq to do de-mining – that is one of the major priorities that the U.S. Government is involved with, as are coalition partners – to bring water, food, electricity. Some schools are back now in session in eastern Mosul – we’re not talking in the tougher parts where ISIS has really dug in in western Mosul, but in eastern Mosul. And that’s really a success story as we see it, because if you have children who are able to go back to school right now, not long after ISIS had – was really dug into that area, that is a success and a real testament to the hard work that the Iraqis and our coalition partners have done as well.

QUESTION: Do you have any suggestions for political changes in the area, political reforms?

MS NAUERT: We wouldn’t have any – I don’t think we would have any suggestions for that. There is a Government of Iraq, and the Government of Iraq can best decide. Okay.

All right, last question.

QUESTION: And just one on – one more on Qatar?

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Is Ambassador Coppedge staying in her role? And is that an important role that needs to be filled at this department? You’ve got 67-odd special envoys and representatives that this department – or this administration in particular has said needs to be whittled down substantially, if not entirely eliminated. She got a job at – next month? And if so – and if not, is somebody else going to fill that role?

MS NAUERT: I don’t know the answer to that. Ambassador Coppedge and I talked, spent some time together last week and spent some time together today, and our focus was really solely on the TIP Report and getting that out, and getting the information out. So I didn’t have a chance to ask her what her career plans are, but if I can find out for you and let you know, I certainly will. But she did a terrific job in putting this together.

QUESTION: Is it an important role to fill at this department, even if it’s not her?

MS NAUERT: This – the TIP Report has been ongoing for – what is it? How many – you all have been covering the State Department for a long time. 18 years? 18 years? 17 years, there we go. So I would see that as an important matter, and I’ll just leave it at that.

Okay, last question. Right here.

QUESTION: Senator Corker sent a letter yesterday to Secretary Tillerson threatening to block future arms sales to Gulf nations. How does that affect the negotiation process? Does it help or hurt?

MS NAUERT: I wouldn’t characterize it either way. We’re aware of that letter. That letter came here into the department and there is a lot that’s going to happen this week, I think. There are a lot of conversations left to be had. I’m about to step into one right now, so I just don’t want to get ahead of some of those conversations.

Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Thanks. Peter, Gage, do you want to ask a question? Do you guys have a question?

QUESTION: What’s for dinner?

QUESTION: Ask about Trump’s tweets. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: All right. My boys don’t have a question. That’s the first time they’re speechless. Thank you, everybody. We’ll see you again on Thursday. Looking forward to it.

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

Kuwaiti Minister of State for Cabinet Affairs and Acting Minister of Information

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 - June 20, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





June 20, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

NORTH KOREA



QATAR



UKRAINE



NORTH KOREA



QATAR



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



UKRAINE



IRAN


TRANSCRIPT:

2:18 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Welcome back, James Rosen.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Nice to see you. Hi, everybody.

QUESTION: Hi.

MS NAUERT: Hope you’re all doing well today.

Okay. Let me start out by saying today that, on behalf of the Secretary, the entire State Department, and the United States Government, we want to extend our heartfelt condolences to the family of Otto Warmbier and offer them our thoughts and prayers in this time of grief. We want to thank our international partners, especially our protecting power, Sweden, for its tireless efforts to assist Mr. Warmbier for his secure and his release. We hold North Korea accountable for Otto Warmbier’s unjust imprisonment and we want to see three other Americans who are unjustly detained brought home as soon as possible.

As a reminder, the Department of State strongly warns U.S. citizens against travel to North Korea, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.

Another issue I know you all are keeping a very close eye on is Qatar, so I want to give you an update on that right now. Since the embargo was first enforced on June the 5th, the Secretary has had more than 20 phone calls and meetings with Gulf and other regional and international actors. The interactions have included three phone calls and two in-person meetings with the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia, three phone calls with the foreign minister of Qatar, and three calls with the Qatari emir. Numerous other calls have taken place with the leaders of UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Bahrain, and others.

Now that it’s been more than two weeks since the embargo started, we are mystified that the Gulf states have not released to the public, nor to the Qataris, the details about the claims that they are making toward Qatar. The more that time goes by, the more doubt is raised about the actions taken by Saudi Arabia and the UAE. At this point, we are left with one simple question: Were the actions really about their concerns regarding Qatar’s alleged support for terrorism, or were they about the long simmering grievances between and among the GCC countries?

The Secretary is determined to remain engaged as we monitor the situation. He has been delivering the same message to other diplomats overseas. We are encouraging all sides to de-escalate tensions and engage in constructive dialogue. We, once again, call on all parties to focus on the core regional and international goal of fighting terrorism, to meet the commitments that were made in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and to constructively resolve this dispute.

Let me just mention we are welcoming the Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko here at the State Department shortly, so I’m going to have to cut it a little bit short today. I know we do have a lot of news that you want to get to, so I will start with your questions.

QUESTION: So I was – thanks.

MS NAUERT: Go right ahead.

QUESTION: I was going to – well, I still will – start with North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Just on the – you say you’re going to hold the North Koreans to account. Has there been any movement on how exactly that’s going to happen? And what is the status – as I understand it, you have the authority already to make it illegal for U.S. passport – or to invalidate U.S. passports for travel to North Korea. Do you – are you looking for additional authority, and where is the Secretary in his decision-making on whether to use the existing authority?

MS NAUERT: Okay. So let’s start with the travel restrictions, and that is under – we’re contemplating that right now. We’ve not come to any kind of decision on that matter just yet, but we’re continuing to look at it. We have a great deal of resolve to try to handle this situation and try to hold North Korea responsible for the death of Mr. Warmbier and bring back those three Americans who do remain there. So we’re continuing to evaluate whether we should put in some sort of a travel restriction. The Secretary has the authority to do it; he just has not come to a conclusion about how this would potentially work, but we’re still considering it.

QUESTION: Okay. And have you thought about how exactly it is that you’re going to hold them accountable for his death?

MS NAUERT: We’re still considering our options at this time. So we got the news yesterday, less than 24 hours ago, that Mr. Warmbier passed away. This came as – well, we’re all deeply saddened by it.

QUESTION: So this – the idea of travel restrictions has been around for some time.

MS NAUERT: Correct.

QUESTION: It goes back to the previous administration. Do you know, in your research of this, what has been the reason – since there have been so many Americans detained there, what is the argument against – what has been the argument against doing it and why hasn’t it been put in place prior?

MS NAUERT: Well, I think we think that our Travel Warning that we have had in place for quite some time has been very strong. Not blaming anyone for this, but of course we want to encourage Americans – strongly encourage them – not to go to North Korea. We’ve been very clear about that. Every one of the briefings that I have been at, I have strongly stressed that: Do not go to North Korea. We can’t get to you there. We have to rely on Sweden, and you know what can happen.

So we’ve been consistently evaluating whether we want to put that travel restriction in place, and I just can’t comment on why that hasn’t happened yet, other than that it is under consideration.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Okay?

QUESTION: Heather, can we go to the Palestinian --

MS NAUERT: Let’s stick with DPRK right now.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Barbara, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Just two questions. In her background call on preparing for the China meeting tomorrow, Ms. Thornton seemed to separate quite much the action on the ballistic missiles and nuclear program, like the effort to get this echo chamber of sanctions, and separated that from the – what happened to Otto Warmbier and the other hostages. Is there – is that still the case after his death? I mean, is there any talk about sanctions or something because of what happened to him? And the second question is --

MS NAUERT: So all of that would still be under consideration. The actions --

QUESTION: Is that one of the things under consideration?

MS NAUERT: The actions that we may or may not take are still being contemplated here, so it’s just too early to say exactly what we’re going to do just yet.

QUESTION: And then just about the three that are still there, my understanding is that the State Department envoy met them.

MS NAUERT: That is correct.

QUESTION: Yeah. So what can you say about their condition? Can you say anything about their condition?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. I can’t say anything about their condition. You all know that we aren’t going to comment on people’s health situations, positively or negatively, one way or another. But Ambassador Yun did have the opportunity to meet with them. He was able to sit down and speak with them.

QUESTION: So they could all speak?

MS NAUERT: Let me rephrase that. Sorry. He did have a chance to meet with them. I’m not saying that they didn’t speak. I know he sat down and had some sort of a dialogue with them. I just don’t recall the exact word that was used. But we were face to face. Ambassador Yun was face to face with those Americans. And we would just like to see them brought home as quickly as possible.

DPRK. Go ahead. Hi, Carol.

QUESTION: Yeah. What else is on the table? What other options are you considering? Might you be considering going to some sort of international court and seeking charges of murder?

MS NAUERT: I’m not aware of that at this point, but again, it’s still early. He passed away about 24 hours ago now.

QUESTION: Can you tell us anything else that might be on the table?

MS NAUERT: I cannot. No. I’m sorry.

DPRK.

QUESTION: Heather? DPRK.

MS NAUERT: Yes. Hi, Nike.

QUESTION: The touring company that’s involved in Otto Warmbier’s travel to North Korea – the Young Pioneer Tours – is physically located in China. Is there any discussion to designate these types of companies? And is there any discussion to ask China to step up supervision on those type of companies?

MS NAUERT: That’s a really good question. I don’t know. I don’t know the answer to that. Let me look into that for you. I think that’s certainly a wise question to ask right now. We don’t want people to encourage Americans, let alone people from any other nations, to go to North Korea. We can’t get to you, so we remain very concerned about that.

Okay. Hi, Gardell.

QUESTION: Yeah. I just was wondering, Heather, it seemed to take you a long time to kind of get to outrage on the Warmbier situation. For a long time, you were simply saying you were happy that he was home; you didn’t address his health. And even over the course of yesterday, it took – I don't know – six, seven hours from the time of his announced death to the time of statements coming out from the State Department and the White House.

MS NAUERT: I think you’re wrong about that. Let me go back and check the timing, because I was involved in this every step of the way.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: As we learned about Mr. Warmbier’s death and were able to confirm that that did, in fact, occur, we gave the White House, of course, the opportunity – let me rephrase that. The White House took the lead on that. The President had spoken with the family in the past. We wanted to give the White House the opportunity to be able to speak to that. We then followed on.

I would not characterize it as it took time to express outrage. When I first addressed this, that Otto Warmbier was brought back home to the United States – I believe it was a week ago today. Is that right, a week ago today? – we at the State Department were happy that he was on his way home. We were happy he was on his way home. And he had not even landed at the time that I was getting questions – I don’t think you were here that day. Correct? You were not here that day?

QUESTION: I read the transcript though.

MS NAUERT: I understand.

QUESTION: Each time you didn’t – all you said was that you were happy he was home. You didn’t, obviously, address his health conditions, despite the fact that the family itself had made that --

MS NAUERT: I’m sure you know very well that we don’t comment on people’s health status. We don’t comment on the health status of American citizens. We will never do that. We don’t do that. His parents chose to speak about that. They are able to speak about that. Okay? So I will never characterize someone’s health, whether they’re in great health or they’re not in great health, from this podium. It is not my place to do so, and it is not the place of the State Department to do so. I’m sure you know that.

QUESTION: Okay. But I mean no sense of – it wasn’t until yesterday, last night really, that this administration expressed something close to outrage about how Otto Warmbier was handled in North Korea. Was that simply because you could not talk about his health? Or why was that?

And one – just one more add on this. The President also said today that if he’d been taken out within days, things would have been different. And he talked about how essential it was to get – to have gotten Otto Warmbier out immediately and quickly. Does that put a lot of pressure on you now to get the other three Americans out quickly and immediately?

MS NAUERT: We would like the other Americans to come home just as quickly as possible. One of the very first briefings that I had here when I joined the State Department not long ago was from our consular affairs officials, and that’s when they talked to me about Mr. Warmbier’s case, expressing concern as – just as they express concern about the cases of other detained Americans across the country. That is a top issue that will always remain a top issue here at the State Department.

Next question, please.

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: On North Korea.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, do we have anything else on the DPRK? We don’t have that much --

QUESTION: On North Korea.

QUESTION: On North Korea.

MS NAUERT: -- much time. Carol, go right ahead. I’m sorry, Anne.

QUESTION: We’re interchangeable. (Laughter.)

MS NAUERT: Same paper.

QUESTION: Is one of the things under consideration, in following up on North Korea, a suspension or change to the unofficial talks that – of the sort that Mr. Yun participated in and through which he learned, apparently, of the severity of Otto Warmbier’s condition?

MS NAUERT: At this time I’m not going to be able to get into any additional conversations about sideline talks or anything like that.

QUESTION: I mean, it is – it historically has been --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- a channel that the North Koreans have used for good and ill, right? They have – they’ve used it to communicate things they wanted to communicate, but they’ve also used it to say, “Hey look, the Americans are willing to talk to us,” and to legitimize themselves. So theoretically, it would be something that you could – a carrot you could remove.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m just not going to get into that right now. But if there’s a point where we can give you more on that, I certainly will. Okay, thank you. DPRK.

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Oh. Okay. James, hi.

QUESTION: Heather, first, allow me to say on behalf of everyone at Fox News how very proud we all are of you for --

MS NAUERT: Thank you.

QUESTION: -- assuming your new duties in government service, and that this administration – any administration – is very fortunate to have you.

MS NAUERT: Thank you, James. That’s very sweet.

QUESTION: Now, about your financial disclosure form. (Laughter.) No, I’m kidding. I’m sure that you saw the statement from Senator McCain about the Warmbier case. He said, “Let us state the facts plainly: Otto Warmbier was murdered by the regime of King Jong-un.” First question: Does this administration agree with that statement?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I’m not going to comment on what Senator McCain said. I’m familiar with what he said, but I’m just not going to characterize that. We just can’t comment on the circumstances of his death right now, but we remain committed – and the Secretary remains very committed – to hold North Korea accountable for his death.

QUESTION: Two more on this, and then I’ll yield to others. In telling us, as you just did just now, that you cannot speak to the circumstances surrounding his death, are you also telling us that you are unable to address the allegations that he was physically abused by the North Koreans?

MS NAUERT: Yeah, I can’t comment on that at this time.

QUESTION: Last question: You have covered enough of these as a journalist to know that these cases where Americans are held hostage, essentially, in North Korea are resolved over time, typically with less dire physical outcomes than we have witnessed here, and typically involving perhaps some eminent American figure traveling to Pyongyang to secure release and so forth. There is almost a kind of – we might even say that there’s kind of an established procedure, almost of sorts, with respect to this. And I just wonder if it is the view of the Trump administration that this case marks a dramatic shift in all of that, that this represents an escalation, and will be treated as such.

MS NAUERT: Yeah, all I can say to that right now is it’s something of great concern to the administration. You saw the President’s comments last night. You read the Secretary’s comments. Everyone’s grieving, everyone’s concerned about that, and we’re understandably upset about that. So we’re just going to be – continue to take a look at what we can do about this. And I’m just going to have to leave it there. Okay?

QUESTION: Can I change topic to Palestine-Israel?

MS NAUERT: Let’s move on to something else. Hi, Dave.

QUESTION: Hi, thanks. So on the Qatar issue, you said at the start you have been mystified by Saudi Arabia’s failure to present evidence.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: But they have presented a clear list of demands to Qatar. Are they demands that you endorse? You – the Secretary has said in the past that Qatar should do more against terrorism and against terror financing. Do you have a list of your own demands to Qatar that you’ve made privately, or should the embargo end now?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So I’m not aware of any demands that we are putting on them other than that we ask all the countries involved to look again at the top issue. And the top issue, as we see it and as we all agreed to from Riyadh, was defeating terrorism. Each of these nations has confronted terrorism is one way, shape, or form. That continues to be the main issue. We call on those countries to resolve their differences, to work together, and speed this along.

QUESTION: Are Saudi Arabia’s demands reasonable?

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to characterize them as reasonable or unreasonable. But what we see this as long-simmering tensions that have been going on for quite some time, and that is why we believe that this can be resolved peacefully among the parties without the United States having to step in in some sort of formal mediation role, that they can do this on their own. And we’re asking them to let’s move this along.

QUESTION: If they don’t, are you ready to provide that mediation?

MS NAUERT: The President had offered Secretary Tillerson weeks ago to do that. At this point, we don’t think that is necessary. We believe through the Secretary’s talks, through talking with those nations and hearing what they have to say, that they’ll be able to work this out on their own.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, your statement, though, is very harsh on the Saudis, which is somewhat surprising considering the President basically said that you were – you shared the Saudis’ opinion of what’s going on. And you also referred to the alleged Qatari support for extremism. Does that mean that the President’s belief is not the same as the State Department?

MS NAUERT: Our position has not changed on that. I think we are just – the Secretary likes results, and we believe that these are because of long, long-brewing tensions among the various parties, and so we want them to resolve it.

QUESTION: But you see that your position has somewhat shifted from aligning with the Saudi position to urging, calling on the Saudis, demanding in fact – you say you’re mystified that they have – the Saudis and their allies have not presented their list. What, is it just that – have you lost patience with the Saudis?

MS NAUERT: I wouldn’t put it that way. I think we’ve just said to the parties involved let’s – let’s finish this, let’s get this going.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Are you still --

QUESTION: Do you still consider Qatar or do you think Qatar that it’s still supporting terrorist groups?

MS NAUERT: We --

QUESTION: Because the Secretary has said that.

MS NAUERT: We have --

QUESTION: And the President has --

MS NAUERT: We have continued to say that all countries have more that they can do. All countries – all of the countries involved have more that they can do to try to defeat terrorism, whether it’s through terror financing or other means. So we continue to call on Qatar to do that as well as the other nations. And so --

QUESTION: And do you think your statement doesn’t contradict what the President has said two weeks ago about Qatar?

MS NAUERT: I don’t think so at all. I think the President and the Secretary both want to see this resolved. They want results, and let’s see this resolved quickly.

Nick.

QUESTION: So the Secretary canceled his trip to Cancun to focus on Qatar, and then you say he’s been doing all these phone calls.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: So do you believe that the situation has now arrived where there’s nothing else he can do until the sides sort of meet the demands that you’ve laid out today? I mean, the impression we got on Friday was that he was canceling that trip to mediate, but now you seem to be saying that there’s no role for him right now.

MS NAUERT: Well, I know he had a meeting just last evening on this very subject here in Washington. And so I would anticipate that those conversations would continue, but there comes a certain point where you say, folks, let’s get this done, let’s get moving along. The Secretary likes results.

QUESTION: So who was that meeting with last night?

MS NAUERT: He met – I believe it was with the – let me get back with you on that, okay? Anybody – everybody else back --

QUESTION: Can I change topics, please?

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: Very quickly, I want to go to the peace process, Palestinian-Israeli peace process. At a time when there is movement and Mr. Greenblatt is over there --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: Mr. Kushner has --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- is on his way to mediate and so on. The Israelis seem to be accelerating the settlement building and so on, and I wonder if you have a position on this. I wonder if you would urge them, at least while this is ongoing, to slow down, as the President suggested at one time, this settlement – the building acceleration.

MS NAUERT: So a couple things on that matter. First, since we didn’t have the opportunity to brief you all on Friday, I want to say this: We want to condemn the terror attack, the attack that took place against the Israeli police officer that resulted in her death and wounded several others. So we want to extend our sympathies and condolences to the family and the Israelis as well. That brings to mind that we want to reiterate our commitment to stand with Israel against terrorism.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: Now to your question about settlements.

QUESTION: On settlements.

MS NAUERT: The President has been clear all along – his position on this has not changed – and that is that we see settlements as something that does not help the peace process.

QUESTION: And you believe that the Israeli settle – if the Israeli Government would stop building settlements or would issue a freeze at the present time, that would help accelerate the process, correct?

MS NAUERT: The President – again, I’m just going to reiterate what I just said. The President has said that unrestrained settlement activity is not helpful to the peace process.

QUESTION: Okay. And one last question. Is the State Department involved in the ongoing efforts by Mr. Greenblatt and Mr. Kushner?

MS NAUERT: Yes. So as you all know, Mr. Greenblatt and Mr. Kushner are heading over to the Middle East. That trip is closely being coordinated with the State Department. Our embassy is involved in helping to facilitate that trip, and we’re all supporting that trip in every way we can. We would like to see Middle East peace just as much as the President and his representatives would.

I have time for one more question.

QUESTION: Iran. Can we do Iran real quick?

QUESTION: Hold. Just let me make sure. Does that mean that your – that no one from the building is going with them from here, like Mr. Ratney, who has the – has that portfolio?

MS NAUERT: I will look into that for you. Let me take a look at that.

QUESTION: Can I ask one on Ukraine?

QUESTION: Iran.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Just jotting that down for Mr. Lee.

Let’s go to Ukraine real quick, and then James, I’ll take you. Okay.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: Who had Ukraine?

QUESTION: I have Ukraine. Sorry. Michele from NPR.

MS NAUERT: Hi. Michele, hi. How are you?

QUESTION: So last week, Secretary Tillerson said the U.S. doesn’t want to be handcuffed to the Minsk process on Ukraine. But in the Treasury Department announcement today about new sanctions, it says sanctions won’t be eased until Minsk is implemented. So I’m just curious. I mean, is there something else other than Minsk being discussed? Is the – is there another peace plan in the works?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So let me start off by addressing the sanctions issue. And that was the Treasury Department. And they’re just updating sanctions that have already been implemented.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: So it’s not a new stream of sanctions, if you will.

QUESTION: It says in the language that it won’t be lifted –

MS NAUERT: It’s maintaining the sanctions. In terms of the Secretary’s testimony last week in talking about Minsk, I think that’s what you’re referring to. We remain committed. Even though the United States is not a party to it, we remain committed to the Minsk agreements. We continue to call on Russia to adhere to the Minsk agreements. That hasn’t changed. The only thing that’s new about this is the Secretary, and I mentioned a minute ago, likes results.

So we, the United States, has stood by and we have watched. Very little happened with regard to the Minsk agreements. It’s been about two and a half years, three years or so. We would like to see something happen. If Russia and Ukraine would like to come together and work out, through some separate channel of sorts, their own agreement, we could be okay with that. But we’d like to see Minsk – but we would like to see them go forward with Minsk. We’re concerned about that. But we’re also open to other channels as well.

QUESTION: Wait.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you mean that – another channel that would get the results that Minsk seeks?

MS NAUERT: Yeah. The results --

QUESTION: So the rules would be the same.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. The results wouldn’t change. The results wouldn’t change.

QUESTION: Right.

MS NAUERT: But if there’s a different mechanism by which they can work out those results, then that would be okay.

QUESTION: But if either party doesn’t like Minsk, they could just wait and you’ll get bored of it and look for something else.

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: But if either party doesn’t like Minsk, they should just wait it out, since you want results.

MS NAUERT: I think the answer to that would be the – what we want from that, what we would like to see from that, hasn’t changed. It hasn’t changed one bit.

James.

QUESTION: There was a news conference held this morning in Washington by the Iranian dissident group that has periodically sought to disclose what it claims to be illicit nuclear activities of one kind or another. And this group, of course, has had some success in this area, having exposed Natanz. Today their subject was the Iranian ballistic missile program. I wonder if anyone here in the building watched the news conference and has any comment on the purported revelation.

MS NAUERT: Yeah. So I’m aware that that news conference took place. I know some folks in the building were certainly monitoring that. So we’re continuing to monitor the ballistic missile program. We are monitoring that program closely and very carefully. In terms of intelligence matters or details of our efforts to try to monitor the ballistic missile program, I am not going to be able to get into that today.

Okay. Guys, I’m just –

QUESTION: This regard the other question. On Iran --

MS NAUERT: I’m going to have to leave right now. I’m really sorry. Today --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: -- Petro Poroshenko is upstairs and I have to join in that bilateral meeting.

QUESTION: You can’t come down here just twice a week and then --

MS NAUERT: Matt, we can talk about – we can talk about this later. Okay? I would love to spend more time with you. I know we have a lot of ground to plow today. But I have to get up to this meeting. Okay?

QUESTION: I also would want to spend more time with Matt. (Laughter.)

(The briefing was concluded at 2:44 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - June 13, 2017

Heather Nauert





Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





June 13, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA



RUSSIA



QATAR/SAUDI ARABIA



CHINA/TAIWAN/PANAMA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



QATAR/SAUDI ARABIA



DEPARTMENT



INDONESIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:26 p.m. EDT

MS NAUERT: Hi, everyone. I hope you are all well today. So I know it’s a little unorthodox to brief on a day that the Secretary is testifying before Congress. As you all know, he is testifying twice today and twice again tomorrow. In the interest of providing you with as much information as possible, we decided to do this today. We’re trying to stick to a Tuesday/Thursday briefing, so – but we are going to keep it relatively brief today.

So let’s start out with this. The Secretary testified this morning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on FY 2018 budget. That was a request for the State Department and also USAID. He will appear this afternoon before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Relations, and Related Programs. Tomorrow he will appear before the House Foreign Affairs Committees and House Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Relations, and Related Programs. The focus of each hearing is on FY 2018 and the budget request.

The Secretary has stated that FY18 budget request for the State Department and USAID of 37.6 billion aligns with the administration’s objective of making America’s security our top priority. He also noted that we will continue to lead in international development, global health, democracy, good governance initiatives, and humanitarian efforts, while asking other donors and partners around the world to increase their support.

Here in the building, prior to his testimony on the Hill today, Secretary Tillerson met with his Saudi counterpart, Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir. The two leaders discussed the regional developments, and the Secretary reiterated the importance of de-escalating the situation in the Gulf, and they reaffirmed the need for constructive dialogue to resolve the dispute as quickly as possible. Both leaders agree that there is a willingness on all sides to de-escalate the situation and work toward a lasting resolution. That’s a first step. We agreed on the need to focus completely on the global fight against terrorism.

And with that, I will take your questions. Matt Lee, let’s start with you.

QUESTION: Thank --

MS NAUERT: May I mention – I know you were interested in the Pickering, Rangels fellows. Anyone who’s interested in that, let’s talk about that after, if we could, please.

Go right ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. On the release of Mr. Warmbier. The timeline that was put out at the White House – I’m just – I just had a couple questions about it. When Ambassador Yun went to New York, was he – did the North Koreans invite him to go to North Korea to pick him up? In other words, when he left the States to go to North Korea, did he know that he was going to be in a position to bring Mr. Warmbier home?

MS NAUERT: Some of these questions – and I understand the interest that everyone has on this case. First, let me say how pleased we are to have Otto Warmbier back in the United States. What an incredible day that one of our fellow American citizens, who’s been detained in North Korea for more than a year, and we had difficulty, as you all are very well aware, in reaching him – we had to go through the Government of Sweden, our protective power, in order to get any kind of information, and even then it was extremely rare. So we are grateful today that he is released and he is on his way back to the United States.

I know and appreciate you will have a lot of questions about how all of this developed. Unfortunately, today I’m not going to be able to answer all of that for you. Even though some information was put out, I’m just not going to be able to go that far in it today. So I just want you to please try to have some understanding and bear with us. It’s a sensitive situation; he is on his way home, and some of these questions I will have to refer you to his family on.

But Matt, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Right. But my question still stands. When Ambassador Yun went to – or Special Representative Yun left the United States, did he know, or was he assured of a meeting with Mr. – or was he assured that he was going to see Mr. Warmbier, and did he know that he would be able to bring him back?

MS NAUERT: I am not going to be able to answer that at this time. Mr. Warmbier is in the air; he’s on his way home. We do not have all of the details about how all of this transpired just yet.

QUESTION: Okay. Well, did the North Koreans give any reason why they waited until June, until last week, to let anybody know about what his condition was? And secondly, the – this timeline has the Swedes – the North Koreans agreeing that the Swedes can get access to him. And then it says after Sweden is granted visitation rights to Mr. Warmbier, the North Koreans then urgently requested to have this in-person meeting in New York.

So I mean, it sounds – the impression left by this timeline is that the North Koreans were concerned, that they knew that once the Swedes got access to him that his condition was going to get out, and then they were looking for a way out of this. And that’s why – is that – is that a correct understanding?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I can just say for now that we are thankful that he is on his way home. We look forward to him being back in the arms of his parents at his home in Ohio. And again, this is a developing situation. I’m sure you all understand information is hard to come by in North Korea. We were lucky enough to be able to get a team over there. We’re grateful for that. We’re grateful to come – him to be able to come home. And I’ll try to get you more information as we get more.

QUESTION: Can we (inaudible)?

QUESTION: Thanks.

MS NAUERT: Go ahead, Michele.

QUESTION: You’re expressing pleasure and gratitude that yes, he is back home. But you must also feel something else based on his condition. Can you talk about the State Department’s stance and feelings because of what’s happened?

MS NAUERT: So I can’t comment anything on his health. That is against our State Department guidelines to get into that.

QUESTION: His parents have released a statement on his health.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Well, then I’d have to refer you to his parents. We are trying to be sensitive to the family. It is – if his parents choose to address it, they are more than welcome to do so. But I am not going to characterize what their son may have been through or may not have been through, so I’m just going to have to refer you to the family right now.

QUESTION: I wasn’t asking for anything on his condition.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Just based on the fact that he’s been in a coma for a year, the State Department must express something besides gratitude, I’m guessing, at the state of --

MS NAUERT: We have been extremely concerned about his situation all along, as we are of any American citizen who has been detained in any part of the world. This is one of the highest priorities. You all know this. One of the highest priorities of the State Department is the safety, welfare, and well-being of our U.S. citizens and who are abroad. So we continue to try to monitor how they are doing to the best that we can.

QUESTION: Through this, were you able to determine how the other detainees are? Are they okay? Did anyone have any contacts with those three others?

MS NAUERT: Unfortunately, Michele, I just can’t get into that right now. But as the days go by, we may have more information for you on that.

Nick, go right ahead.

QUESTION: To Qatar.

QUESTION: Can we --

MS NAUERT: Wait, let’s stay in the region for – before we go on to something else.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: Barbara, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just a very quick one. Can you just confirm the reports that Dennis Rodman had nothing to do with this?

MS NAUERT: That is correct that Dennis Rodman had nothing to do with the release of Mr. Warmbier.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

MS NAUERT: Sir. I’m sorry, your name is?

QUESTION: When was (inaudible) anything?

MS NAUERT: Sir, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Sorry. My name is Oren Dorell of USA Today.

MS NAUERT: Oh, Oren. That’s right. Sorry.

QUESTION: When did the State Department or the United States find out that Mr. Warmbier may have had some kind of – any issue at all, that things were not quite right with him health-wise?

MS NAUERT: I can’t comment on anything related to his health. I hope you’ll please understand that, my position on that.

QUESTION: But I’m not asking about his health. Just when --

MS NAUERT: But getting into that would --

QUESTION: -- when anything came across that anything was amiss.

MS NAUERT: -- would confirm your belief that there is something at issue with his health. I can’t get into anything related to that at all. I hope you will please understand.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MS NAUERT: Go ahead. We’re sticking in the region for now.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS NAUERT: On this matter.

QUESTION: Yeah. What was the Dennis Rodman purpose for the North Korea visit? And --

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: What was his purpose of North Korean visit? I mean Dennis Rodman visit.

QUESTION: Why did he go?

MS NAUERT: I’m sorry? I --

QUESTION: Dennis Rodman. Why --

QUESTION: Rodman’s visit. Why did he go?

MS NAUERT: Oh, I’ve not spoken with Dennis Rodman. I don’t know why he went to North Korea. (Laughter.) Look, let me do – let me reiterate: We strongly, strongly suggest that Americans do not go to North Korea.

QUESTION: Did he take any message of the President Trump?

MS NAUERT: I am not aware of any message of the sort.

QUESTION: Here is the deal. Congressman Schiff, Wilson introduced bipartisan North Korea Travel Control Act May 25th last month. He said the legislation would restrict travel to, from, and within North Korea by American citizens.

MS NAUERT: So I think that underscores the U.S. Government’s general concern about travel to North Korea. That’s something before Congress, and I can’t comment on any pending legislation right now.

Any other questions on North Korea?

QUESTION: Yes.

MS NAUERT: Excuse me. On Mr. Warmbier.

QUESTION: Can you just tell us about the last time that a U.S. Government official traveled to North Korea and --

MS NAUERT: The last time a U.S. official traveled?

QUESTION: Government official. Yes. And what does this mean for U.S.-North Korea talks right now? Does this open some new dialogue, or is there any indication on that front?

MS NAUERT: So I’m going to have to take a look at that for you, because I know our consular officials last had access to Mr. Warmbier March 2nd, 2016. That was the last time that we had consular access. In terms of the last time that --

QUESTION: The Swedes.

MS NAUERT: Through the Swedish embassy, yes. Thank you, Matt. In terms of the last time the U.S. official was in the DPRK, that I do not know.

QUESTION: But you can get back to us on that?

MS NAUERT: I can try to get back to you on that. I’m not certain that I’m going to be able to give you an answer, but I will do my best.

QUESTION: And U.S.-North Korea dialogue – has that opened as a result of this?

MS NAUERT: I think this is all so fresh. We were just able to get the release of Mr. Warmbier. Again, we are grateful and thankful for that. We are glad to have him on his way home. I think it’s just too soon to say what that dialogue is going to look like.

QUESTION: Did you say March 6th? Sorry. Was the last --

MS NAUERT: Let me just double-check here.

QUESTION: 2nd of March.

MS NAUERT: March 2nd, 2016, was the last time --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS NAUERT: -- he had been granted consular access, and again, that was through the Swedish embassy.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

QUESTION: I’ve got a --

MS NAUERT: Okay. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Staying in the region, same topic.

MS NAUERT: Sorry, your name is?

QUESTION: So I’m Kyle Cardine with the Japanese network Fuji TV.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, Kyle.

QUESTION: So from the reports, it was saying that Mr. Warmbier was in an American military base in northern Japan, in Sapporo. I was wondering, is there any particular reason why he was being held at that American military base first?

MS NAUERT: I am – I can’t get into anything on that. I’m not aware of that particular report. Again, this is a lot of new information that’s coming in, and we’ve been very engaged in this in the last few days.

Anything else on this?

QUESTION: Yeah, one more question.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Hi, (inaudible)

QUESTION: You said that the Swedes, in that timeline --

MS NAUERT: Yes.

QUESTION: -- provided – that the Swedes were granted a visit with Otto. Do you know if that actually happened? And if so, why was there such a delay between their visit and the U.S. learning about his medical status?

MS NAUERT: I would have to say that – and I’m aware of all the information that you are talking about. Some of these are private diplomatic conversations that took place. Some of these are very sensitive matters that went to the top level of the U.S. Government. So again, I know you’re going to be disappointed, because you want more information on this case. We are all very happy to have him home, but --

QUESTION: Just a yes or no if it did happen?

MS NAUERT: Which? If which did happen?

QUESTION: The Swedish visit to see Otto at some point in May.

MS NAUERT: I’m not sure that I have that in front of me right now. Let me look into that and see if I can get you an answer. I may not be able to get you an answer, but let me just double-check.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Anything else on Mr. Warmbier? Anything else on Mr. Warmbier?

QUESTION: I just want to – wait.

QUESTION: Do you – can you talk about the type of facility or the medical care that he was being given while he was --

MS NAUERT: I cannot.

QUESTION: Okay.

MS NAUERT: I cannot.

QUESTION: I just want to point out that this is information that’s coming from a White House official. I mean, it’s not – if it was a private diplomatic – that argument just doesn’t hold up, frankly. I mean, the White House is talking about it already.

MS NAUERT: Matt, I’m – look. Okay, let me make this clear. I know you all have some information in front of you that’s coming in from various sources. Some of it is coming in from interviews that certain people did – family members, for example – with the press. I don’t think it’s right to be here, from the State Department, fully giving all the information that you all want because you’re curious. That’s your job; I understand that. I want to remain sensitive to the family at this point. As more information comes in and we can vet this information and give you more information, what we can give you, I certainly will. But I’m not going to be able to satiate your appetite --

QUESTION: All right. Fine. But --

MS NAUERT: -- for all the information that you want on this.

QUESTION: Okay. Fine. But you’re not suggesting that anything in this timeline that they put out is wrong, are you?

MS NAUERT: Matt, I don’t have that in front of me at this time, okay? There are a lot of details in there. We can get back to you and work to get back with you for some answers on that. Okay?

QUESTION: May we change topics, please?

MS NAUERT: Anything else on Mr. Warmbier? And we don’t have a lot of time today, folks, because the Secretary is --

QUESTION: Can we change topics really quick?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Yes. Okay, yes.

QUESTION: Heather, is the administration opposed to the Russia sanctions amendment that bipartisan senators agreed to last evening?

MS NAUERT: So what you’re talking about is taking place on Capitol Hill, so I’m not going to be able to get into any legislative issues that are pending right now.

Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: I meant on --

MS NAUERT: We just don’t comment on legislation, on pending legislation.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. Hold on. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On Qatar, Qatari foreign – Qatari defense minister is in town, and the Saudi foreign minister is also here. Is the State Department trying to get them – to bring them together to try to solve the differences between them?

MS NAUERT: I’m glad you asked. I don’t have any meetings to announce between the Government of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, but Secretary Tillerson did have a meeting with the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia this morning here at the State Department. Together, they talked about the need and the agreement to come together, to work together. And I would characterize the mood and the approach to that as being one that is hopeful, that believes that the worst is behind us. And let me just leave it at that.

QUESTION: Two more question on this.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Seriously, we only have a few minutes today in order to do that. Last follow-up on that.

QUESTION: A follow-up on this. Is he planning to – is the Secretary planning to meet with the Qatari defense minister?

MS NAUERT: I don’t have any meetings to announce right now about the Secretary potentially meeting with the Qataris, if they are. I don't have any – just don’t have any meetings to announce on that.

QUESTION: And do you consider Qatar as a state sponsor of terror, since they are providing --

MS NAUERT: I’m not going to characterize that. I’m not going to characterize that.

QUESTION: China and Taiwan?

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay. Okay. China, Taiwan. Miss, in the back row with your – gray. Tell me your name please.

QUESTION: Tsung-Shen Chang from Central News Agency.

MS NAUERT: Okay. Thank you.

QUESTION: China just established official tie with Panama. I’m just wondering do you have – does U.S. have any concern with regard to the peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait?

MS NAUERT: So the President announced that he will meet with the president of Panama in the coming weeks. So we are certainly aware of Panama’s announcement that it has ended diplomatic ties with Taiwan. We, the United States, urge all concerned parties to engage in productive dialogue and avoid escalatory and destabilizing moves. The United States has a deep and biding interest in cross-strait stability, of course, between Taiwan and China, and we believe that the dialogue between the two sides has enabled peace, stability, and development in recent years.

Next question, please.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Wait a second.

QUESTION: But wait a second, do you have any concerns at all about the growing relationship between Panama and China, given the Chinese economic/commercial interest in the canal and members of this administration’s expressed concern, prior to being in this administration, about kind of growing Chinese influence?

MS NAUERT: I think we would see that as a matter to be handled and directed to both of those parties, between Panama and China.

QUESTION: Right. Except for the fact that the canal is a major route for – I mean, stuff that goes from the west coast of the United States to the east coast of the United States goes through that canal.

MS NAUERT: I understand. I’m not in the position right now to characterize what our position will be on that. As of now, this is considered an internal matter between the Government of – between Taiwan and Panama.

QUESTION: Heather?

QUESTION: Very quickly to the Palestinian --

MS NAUERT: Wait. Anything else on that?

QUESTION: Very quickly to the Palestinian issue.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Anything else on that? Just hold on.

QUESTION: The same issue.

MS NAUERT: I will get to you. I promise. Okay.

QUESTION: You have these twice-a-week briefings and you limit the time on them. You can’t – there’s an entire world out that people have questions about.

MS NAUERT: Matt, we all know there’s an entire world out there and everyone has questions. Normally, we wouldn’t be briefing today. And we are doing that to provide you as much information as possible. Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MS NAUERT: Anything – go ahead, miss, in the light blue, in the back.

QUESTION: Hi. Jessica with TVBS of Taiwan.

MS NAUERT: Hi, Jessica.

QUESTION: On Panama, does the U.S. got any heads-up from the Panama side before the announcement?

MS NAUERT: Did we get a heads-up from the Panamanian side?

QUESTION: Panama.

MS NAUERT: I am not aware of that, but I can certainly look into that for you. Okay.

Go ahead, Said. There, I told you I’d call on you, didn’t I?

QUESTION: I know you did. Thank you. I appreciate it. I have a couple quick questions on the Palestinian issue.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: There is a desperate situation in Gaza. The electricity has been cut off back to two hours a day. I mean, it was a harsh enough situation to begin with. Is the United States urging the Israelis, the Egyptians, even the Palestinian Authority to sort of relieve the Gazans under siege?

MS NAUERT: So our position is that we are concerned about the humanitarian situation in Gaza. We – as you speak about the electricity, we are aware that the Israeli cabinet approved the PA, the Palestinian Authority’s, request to reduce electricity in Gaza. Beyond that, I’m not going to weigh in, but we do remain deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation right there. We continue to underscore the need for international support for Gaza’s recovery and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people. But no one should lose sight of the fact, of this fact, that Hamas bears the greatest responsibility for the current situation in Gaza.

QUESTION: But the population --

MS NAUERT: Anybody?

QUESTION: -- is still under siege.

MS NAUERT: Got to move around.

QUESTION: Okay. Could I ask you very quickly on UNRWA – I mean, related – because you talked about the need to help the Palestinians.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: The Israeli prime minister is calling to dissolve UNRWA, which is the United Nations agency for works and relief for the Palestinians. And now, the United States is the biggest contributor to UNRWA. You certainly don’t support this call for dissolving UNRWA, do you?

MS NAUERT: The Secretary is on the Hill right now. He is testifying on the budget. He is a quarter of the way through his testimony and his questions and answers with members of Congress, so I don’t want to get ahead of anything that he could be discussing on that. I hope you will understand that.

QUESTION: Russia?

MS NAUERT: Sir, right back there in the back.

QUESTION: Thank you very much. Gabriel Elizondo from Al Jazeera. Just two follow-ups on the Gulf crisis situation. Number one is last week the Secretary characterized what’s going on as a blockade against Qatar. Is there any reason to think that he has changed his opinion on that, that it’s a blockade? Number one. And number two is you characterized the meeting with the Saudi foreign minister as you believe the worst is behind us, or that’s how you characterized it. Can you give more specifics on how you came to that conclusion?

MS NAUERT: I can’t get into more on our private diplomatic conversations that took place this morning, but I will say I think both parties believe that they are looking forward to putting this past them. The focus on terrorism has remained a top priority; that has not changed. But I think both parties look forward to being able to fully get back to that so that we don’t have to talk about this ongoing issue. Okay.

QUESTION: And the first question about --

MS NAUERT: Conor, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- if he still characterizes it as a --

MS NAUERT: Conor, go --

QUESTION: -- as a blockade?

MS NAUERT: The Saudi foreign minister addressed that earlier this morning.

QUESTION: No, Secretary Tillerson.

MS NAUERT: I don’t have anything on the Secretary on that. Sir?

QUESTION: Just really quick on Qatar. Does the U.S. view itself as a neutral arbiter in this situation?

MS NAUERT: I think the U.S. has been clear about calling on parties. We have talked to all of the governments involved saying that everyone can do more to fight terrorism, that everyone can do more to address some of the terror financing issues. That was made clear in Saudi Arabia. I think that is clear, again, now and we’ve not changed our position on that.

Dave, go ahead.

QUESTION: Just an immediate follow-up on that. Last week, the Secretary asked the Saudis and their allies to ease the blockade. Today, Mr. Jubeir said it’s not a blockade.

MS NAUERT: He did.

QUESTION: Is this a disagreement on terminology or is there a disagreement on the actual substance of what’s happening?

MS NAUERT: I think the important part to keep in mind, and I know a lot of folks like to focus on the squabbles – that’s the most interesting thing in the news, but let’s keep in mind that everyone has agreed, or these parties are working toward an agreement of combatting terrorism, and that is the main focus. And let’s not get bogged down in all the details about who’s calling what when. This is trending in a positive direction and let’s stay focused on that so that we can continue to fight the war on terror.

Last question, please.

QUESTION: Different topic?

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: Back here.

MS NAUERT: Okay.

QUESTION: Do you have anything on American ambassador to Qatar? She is tweet today that she is leaving.

MS NAUERT: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is that something to do with her not on the same page with the policy here?

MS NAUERT: Not at all. In fact, I talked with Ambassador Smith this morning. She has had a 25-year career with the State Department, which is pretty incredible for somebody to have a 25-year career anywhere nowadays. And she said to me she is not quitting; that this is a time that she is ready to make a change in her life. This is at the end of – and I’m searching for my notes here right here – this is a time that she has decided she is looking forward to moving on and doing something else. So we congratulate her on what will be her next move and look forward to hearing what that will be. Okay.

QUESTION: Final question on Indonesia. Could you elaborate on the statement of terrorist designation of MMI? Why this timing?

MS NAUERT: Okay, Nike, I’m going to have to get back to you on that.

Everybody, thank you so much.

QUESTION: Question.

MS NAUERT: We did our best to bring you some information today. I hope this helped to clarify some things. I know you have a lot more questions. We’ll be working in the coming days to get you more answers, okay? Thank you, everyone. Have a great day.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:49 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - April 11, 2017

Mark C. Toner





Acting Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC




April 11, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TILLERSON'S TRAVEL



SYRIA



HUNGARY



RUSSIA/SYRIA



UKRAINE/RUSSIA



RUSSIA/SYRIA



SYRIA/LEBANON



SYRIA/RUSSIA



SYRIA



ITALY/RUSSIA


TRANSCRIPT:





Today's briefing was held off-camera, so no video is available.

2:03 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Thank you. Thanks, everyone, for joining us today. Happy to be back among you and to do the briefing. Just in an effort to accommodate our folks from the broadcast media, I am trying to do this through a headset today, so I hope the sound quality is a little bit better so it can – the audio can be useable for some – for all of you, rather. I know that was some constructive criticism offered in some of the earlier phone briefings we did.

I don’t have much at the top. I did want to briefly update you on the Secretary’s travels. As you’ve probably seen, Secretary Tillerson concluded meetings in Lucca, Italy at the G7 earlier today. I’d refer you to the joint communique that was issued by the participants earlier. On the margins of the G7, he was able to meet with counterparts from Japan, from the UK, from France, Italy, and others. And earlier today, there was a meeting on Syria of like-minded countries.

The Secretary is now in Moscow, where he’ll hold meetings with his counterpart Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and other officials starting tomorrow. With that, I’ll hand it over to our first question.

OPERATOR: And ladies and gentlemen, just a quick reminder, if you do have a question, please press *1 at any time. And first, we’ll have Matthew Lee with the Associated Press. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi Mark. Thanks. I hope you’re feeling better. Doesn’t sound like you are 100 percent yet, but get well soon. Come back.

My question – I have two. They’re very disparate questions, though. The first is on Syria and the Secretary’s comment at the press avail this morning, when he said, “I think it is clear to us all that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end.” When I read that, I was reminded of the previous administration saying that President Assad’s days are numbered back in August of 2011 and continuing to say that his days are numbered for the next 1,983 days, if my math is correct. And I’m wondering if, when the Secretary says that now, does he – is he saying – he’s clearly referring to some kind of new strategy, or it appears to me that he should be referring to a new kind of strategy that the U.S. is going to use in terms of Assad. And I’m wondering is that simply the airstrikes that were conducted that the previous administration opted against doing, or is there something else, and what is it? What would that something else be?

And then my second one has to do with Hungary. And I’m just wondering if you can add anything to what Deputy Assistant Yee – Secretary Yee said in Hungary today about the signing of the bill on the Central European University.

MR TONER: Sure. Thanks, Matt. And thanks for the best wishes of my health.

First of all, with reference to Secretary Tillerson’s remarks earlier today, look, we obviously have no interest in seeing Assad remain in Syria over the long run. I think the world is with us on that. And last week’s barbaric chemical weapons attack in Idlib province only underscored the fact that in the eyes of, frankly, most people around the world, this is a leader who has lost legitimacy and has killed and continues to kill hundreds of thousands of his own people.

I think in terms of the strategy question, Secretary Tillerson was also clear – and others have been clear – that we’ve got a dual focus: One, without doubt, is focused on destroying ISIS. That was made crystal clear in the D-ISIS ministerial that took place a few weeks ago, and that remains this administration’s priority. But I do think you’ve seen or are seeing a recognition that we need to focus on moving forward with the political process in Geneva and also trying to strengthen, or de-escalate I guess, the violence in Syria. I don’t have anything to offer in terms of new strategies yet. I think those are still being discussed and new methods to approach that. I would just say that we’re committed to the Geneva process, to a political process that leads to a political solution to Syria. That has not changed. One of the things --

QUESTION: But why does – why does --

MR TONER: Go ahead. Go ahead. I’m sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Why does he say it’s clear to all of us that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end? Why is it clear?

MR TONER: Well, again, I think that he’s simply stating the fact that Assad is a leader in his own mind but not for the Syrian people and that his most recent actions only solidify the fact that he needs to leave and cannot govern Syria. But ultimately, Matt, that has not changed our belief that this is a process that needs to be run and decided on by the Syrian people.

Now what was clear – and you know this from last week – is we have redlines. And one of those redlines is the use of chemical weapons. And this administration carried out a very measured strike on the facility and the aircraft that carried out that strike on Idlib last week. And that sends a clear message that we do have redlines and will enact those redlines.

I do want to move to Hungary quickly. Sorry. I did issue a statement – I’m aware of Deputy Assistant Secretary Yee’s remarks as well. I did issue a statement on those, I think a few weeks ago, as well. We are very concerned about this legislation that was passed by Hungary’s parliament last week that was signed into law by the president this week, I think. And we believe it threatens the continued operations of Central European University, which is a leading academic institution. It’s an important conduit for intellectual and cultural exchanges between Hungary and the United States. And frankly, it’s at the center of freethinking and research. The legislation, we believe, can also similarly threaten the operations of other American universities with degree programs in Hungary, so it goes beyond just Central European University.

I know that tens of thousands of Hungarians have been peacefully protesting in support of the CEU, and researchers and academics and others from around the world have also spoken out in its defense. And I know that – or I can say that Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Tom Shannon met last week with the president and rector of the CEU, the Central European University, Michael Ignatieff, to discuss the effect of this law on this university. So we’re urging the Government of Hungary to suspend implementation of the law. We want to see a review and discussion in order to address any concerns through dialogue with the university itself and other affected institutions going forward.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: And ladies and gentlemen, just a quick reminder, if you do have a question please press * 1 at any time. And next we’ll go to Lesley Wroughton with Reuters. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Hi, Mark. I’m also with Matt. Feel better soon. You sound awful.

MR TONER: Thank you.

QUESTION: Yeah. So Mark, I’ve got a couple of questions. One is do you – will the Secretary actually raise Assad’s future during the meetings in Moscow tomorrow? I mean, will he actually want to kind of outline a plan or get from Russia some kind of commitment on what’s going to happen? Or is this kind of an open-ended something that you’ll leave till later discussions?

The other question I have is if the administration ultimately believes that the Geneva process is the way to negotiate a political transition, how quickly – I mean, do you think that these attacks mean that you’d like to have those discussions brought forward more quickly and to start something quite soon?

And then I have a Ukraine question, if I might have a follow up.

MR TONER: Great. I’m sorry. Just one more time, Lesley, your first question. I apologize.

QUESTION: Okay. Is the Secretary going to raise Assad’s future during the meetings tomorrow in Moscow? (Long pause.) Hello? Mark?

MR TONER: I am so sorry, Lesley. I was --

QUESTION: You don’t like the question?

MR TONER: No. I apologize. I had the mute button on. I apologize.

QUESTION: No worries.

MR TONER: No, I – that’s too bad, because I was really articulate there. Anyway --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: No, look, without getting ahead of the meetings tomorrow, I have no doubt that they’ll discuss Assad and his future, and certainly in light of the actions that he undertook last week, or his regime did. But I think also Secretary Tillerson has been very clear that he’ll raise the question of where Russia stands and whether it’s going to remain supportive of a regime that is carrying out such brutal humanitarian – or brutal attacks on innocent civilians. And I think he posed the question very succinctly earlier today: Which side of history does Russia want to be on? And I think that’s a decision it needs to make.

With respect to – I think you asked a question about whether this adds momentum to the Geneva process. Staffan de Mistura is here in town today. He’s having meetings at the White House. State Department officials are there at those meetings. We’ll see if we can get a readout or the White House can give a readout of those meetings later. But I think it underscores the sense of urgency that we all feel in light of last week’s brutal attacks to really reinvigorate the Geneva process. It’s a – and we all know this who have watched this issue over the years now. It’s partly – you need a de-escalations of the violence so you can get the political negotiations back up and running in Geneva, and that’s our focus and remains our focus with respect to the political process and the civil war in Syria.

You had a question on Ukraine?

QUESTION: Yeah, on Ukraine. Yeah. So the Secretary today – according to the French foreign minister, the Secretary in Italy asked his European counterparts why American voters should care about the conflict in Ukraine. What was behind that question? I mean, does – and I know that Poroshenko of Ukraine today, I think he spoke to the Secretary, it might have been today, to ensure that the U.S. remains committed to supporting Ukraine. Why did he actually ask that question of the – of his European counterparts, given that the U.S. has given at least 3 billion in loan guarantees and other kinds of support for Ukraine?

MR TONER: To be honest, Lesley, that’s a question I think Foreign Minister Ayrault is going to have to answer. I – look, I mean, Secretary Tillerson has been abundantly clear with respect to our position, the U.S. Government’s position, on Ukraine and his support for the Minsk process and his support for sanctions until Russia and the separatists that it backs meet their commitments through Minsk. He made that very clear. He spoke with President Poroshenko earlier today and made it very clear to him that the U.S. position on Ukraine remains the same and is very strongly in support of the Ukrainian Government, and, as I said, the full implementation of the Minsk agreements.

With respect to, as I said, what was reported out about this question, I’m not going to discuss the internal deliberations, but I have no idea of what Foreign Minister Ayrault was referring to.

Next question, please.

QUESTION: We’ll go to Anne Gearan with The Washington Post. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark. Glad to hear your voice, even scratchy. So one question on the discussions in Lucca and one on Moscow. On the G7, can you frame for us the U.S. response to the fact that there wasn’t the kind of unified statement about Russia and Syria that the Secretary had hoped for coming out of those meetings? Does that diminish his leverage going into Moscow? And during his meetings in Moscow, what is the current state of play of whether or not he will meet with President Putin, given that Putin himself had said he expected that meeting as recently as when Putin was at the Arctic meeting? Thank you.

MR TONER: Sure, thanks, Anne. (Coughing.) Excuse me, I apologize.

QUESTION: Oh gee, you sound awful.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) Sorry. With – I’ll answer your – well, hopefully the antibiotic will kick in.

With respect to his Moscow – I’ll start with the second question first. So as I said, he is going to – plans to meet with Secretary – or with Foreign Minister Lavrov and other officials tomorrow. If there is an invitation for him to meet with Putin, of course, he’ll do so. I think that’s a decision for the Kremlin to make and to announce, and up till now we’ve not seen such an offer extended. Now, it could come tomorrow. So as I said, he’s – he’s certainly willing to meet with President Putin to discuss all of these issues.

Your first question was, I think, about the G7 --

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: -- and your concern that it wasn’t quite enough or strong enough on Russia and Syria? Is that --

QUESTION: Right. I mean, what is – what is your view of how strong it was and whether the fact that it doesn’t fully back the U.S. view at this point hinders the Secretary’s leverage when he meets with the Russian officials?

MR TONER: Well, I don’t necessarily think it was – it hinders his efforts by any means, and I think it was actually quite strong on – with respect to the attack, as I said, in – it took place in Idlib province last week, the chemical weapons attack, and it also condemned Syria’s use of chemical weapons. And I think it very clearly shined a light on the fact that – that Russia and Iran and others are – I’m talking about the joint communique – are on the wrong side on this.

And it also expressed full support for the OPCW investigation into the incident and into whether this attack constituted a war crime.

I think you’re probably asking about the issue of sanctions. And look, that’s something that was up for discussion. I don’t have any great insights about – as to why it – as to why it came out the way it did. But I think that Secretary Tillerson is going to Moscow, I think, bolstered by the support of his G7 partners and allies. The fact that – with respect to Syria, Russia is on the wrong side on this. I mean, it has been supporting a regime that is now guilty of crimes against humanity in terms of carrying out chemical weapons attacks, and that’s inexcusable and intolerable. And so I think he’s going to come back – come to – he’s going to – or he’s in Moscow, rather, to deliver a very tough message, but one that needs to be heard by Russia.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: And ladies and gentlemen, again, if you have a question, please press *1 at any time. And we’ll go to Conor Finnegan, ABC News.

QUESTION: Hey Mark, welcome back. Hope you’re feeling better as well. I just had a quick question. President Trump, Vice President Pence, and some other administration officials have all said that this administration wants to work with Russia more broadly against terrorism – something Sean Spicer actually repeated just now in today’s briefing at the White House. So does the administration still think that they can work with Russia on that front given – given not just the chemical weapons attack last week but also what the White House said was a campaign by Russia to mislead and obfuscate about the attack, and while Russia has been aligning itself with another terrorist group, Hizballah?

MR TONER: Right. Excuse me. That’s a big, complex question, but I’ll try to break it down and answer it. (Coughing.) Excuse me, I apologize. And I think it’s going to be somewhat of a nuanced answer, because look, we obviously would welcome if Russia were to seriously commit itself to going after ISIS in Syria. We would welcome such a move. But we’re nowhere near that, and so you’re absolutely right that Russia has, up until now, aligned itself with Assad, with the Iranians, and with Hizballah.

And as Secretary Tillerson asked the question earlier today is what does that in the long-term alliance – how does that serve Russia’s interest? The question is whether Russia – and this is a strategic decision that Russia needs to make, is whether it would instead prefer to align with the United States and other countries in working to constructively resolve the crisis in Syria. And it’s a question, as I said, I’m sure he’ll be raising in his meetings.

I don’t think we rule out any possibility for cooperation with Russia with respect to counterterrorism, but up until now we’ve seen even fledgling efforts kind of end in frustration because – for many reasons, but one is that Russia seems more intent on propping up the Assad regime than it does in really carrying out any counter-ISIS strategy.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Ilhan Tanir with Washington Hatti. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you for doing this. Quick question. Just a couple days ago, OSCE issued a report on Turkey about upcoming referendum which will be held on this Sunday, and this report lists severe limitations for opposition campaign and poses the question whether it’s a possibility for Turkey to hold fair and free elections at this moment. What’s your view? Have you seen the reports, or how do you see the conditions, circumstances in Turkey at the moment for a fair and free election?

MR TONER: Sure. We’ve – we have seen the OSCE and ODIHR’s interim report. Obviously, we refer you to them – to ODIHR – for details of its contents. Of course, we value the OSCE’s contributions to the promotion of democracy and human rights, and that includes its election observation efforts. And we stand firmly behind those efforts throughout the OSCE region. We look forward to the final report after the conclusion of the referendum.

I think I’ll stop myself there and just say, look, we’re going to wait and see what the final assessment is. And as I said, we support the OSCE’s election-monitoring mission, not only in Turkey but throughout the OSCE. Any follow-ups?

QUESTION: Yes. Currently, the second-biggest opposition party co-chairs have been jailed since November – over a dozen MPs – again, from Turkey, the same opposition party – in jail; hundreds of other officials, local officials, have been jailed; and there’s a clear limitations, again, for the campaigning. So aside from the OSCE report, how do you see Turkey’s current conditions? What’s administration’s view aside from the OSCE report?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, as we’ve said on many occasions about our relationship with Turkey, it’s a strong ally, it’s a strong partner, and we have candid conversations about the quality of Turkey’s democracy. We firmly believe that freedom of expression, including freedoms of speech and media, needs to be protected. We believe that political processes need to be transparent, and we believe that political parties need to be able to express their views and get their views out there to the public. We consistently urge Turkey at every level to respect and ensure political freedom, freedom of expression, judicial independence, and other fundamental freedoms.

And again, it’s because we value and respect Turkey’s democracy, democratic tradition, and, frankly, the – it matters to us deeply. And Turkey, as I said, is a strong ally, and we want to see the strongest democratic Turkey as we possibly can.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: And ladies and gentlemen, another reminder: If you have a question, please press *1. And we’ll go to Laurie Mylroie with Kurdistan 24.

QUESTION: Hi, Mark. I have two brief questions for you, and I wish you to get well like the others do. First question: Hizballah media carried a statement Sunday in the name of the previously unheard-of shared operations room, and it said, “We will support Syria with all the means that we have. America knows well our ability to respond. We will respond without taking into consideration any reaction and consequences.” Is that a threat of terrorism in your view, and what is your response to it?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, thank you for the good wishes. And with respect to Hizballah’s threats, of course we take any threats from a foreign terrorist organization very seriously. Hizballah’s forces have helped enable the regime – the Syrian regime – to perpetuate its brutality against its own people and also to incite instability in Lebanon. We call Hizballah – on Hizballah to immediately withdraw from Syria. And by continuing to operate, carry on military operations in Syria in support of the regime, Hizballah is violating its commitment to the Baabda Declaration and the Lebanese disassociation policy from the Syrian conflict. So we, obviously, view Hizballah’s role in Syria as unconstructive, and as I said, we certainly take any threats from this known terrorist organization very seriously.

Any --

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: My – thank you very much. My second question.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: What’s his response to Vladimir Putin’s claim today that the chemical weapons attack in Idlib province was a false flag operation and more may follow? And related to that, can you provide more detail on Secretary Tillerson’s statement there were similar chemical attacks on March 25 and 30 in Hama?

MR TONER: Sure. With respect to President Putin’s remarks, look, we’ve been very clear about our assessment with respect to the chemical weapons attack last week in Idlib province. We stand by our assessment. I know that the White House earlier today held a backgrounder talking about some of the intelligence that led to our assessment, and I said it’s – it was crystal clear to us that this was carried out and it was carried out by the Syrian regime. There’s no false flag with respect to calling this for what it was, which was a gross attack in violation of international norms and standards, and one that justified the response that we took. Because as I said earlier in this briefing, chemical weapons, their use in Syria is a redline. And if used again, then we reserve the right to act in the same capacity.

With respect to this – these additional attacks that you mentioned on March 25th and 30th, as I said, we have a high degree of confidence that the Syrian regime used a chemical nerve agent consistent with sarin in the attack on Khan Shaykhun in Idlib on April 4th, but that’s not an isolated incident. In the same 10-day period, there have been allegations of the Assad regime, rather, has carried out chemical weapons attacks in Hama governate, I think on March 25th and March 30th, and these events are part of a larger trend of allegations of regime use of chemical weapons going back to 2014, including I think three that the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the United Nations’ joint investigative mechanism, attributed to the Assad regime.

So what does this mean? It means it’s clear that Syria’s failed to comply with its most fundamental legal obligations under the Chemical Weapons Convention and UN Security Council Resolution 2118 not to use chemical weapons and to destroy its chemical weapons arsenal in its entirety. So we’re going to continue to work with partners in the region to investigate reports of chemical weapons use in Syria, and we’re going to support the OPCW fact finding mission’s effort to do the same. Again, the idea here is to build a solid body of evidence as to whether these were chemical weapons attacks, confirming that, who were the perpetrators, and eventually, to hold these people accountable.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: And again, ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question, press *1. And we’ll go to Michel Ghandour with MBN. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Hi, Mike – hi, Mark. Hope you will feel better. I have two questions. First, talking about the redlines, is the use of barrel bombs included in the redlines – in the new redline?

MR TONER: Michel, yes. With – sorry – in response to your question, chemical weapons crosses a redline. That doesn’t mean we excuse the other abhorrent weaponry that the Syrian regime has used against its own people, brutally at times, certainly in and around Aleppo during the fall of Aleppo but throughout this conflict. But given the seriousness of using chemical weapons and the universal condemnation of their use, we believe that chemical weapons – the use of chemical weapons – constitutes a redline.

Next question.

QUESTION: And what about the barrel bombs? Because we’ve heard –

MR TONER: I said I’m not excusing in any way, shape, or form, nor am I giving a free pass to some of the other brutal weapons that this regime has shown itself capable of using. I think it speaks to – that their use speaks to the fact that we need to pursue a de-escalation of the violence and we need to get a political resolution, one that ultimately leads to a political transition away from Assad.

Next question.

OPERATOR: And our final question will be from the line of Joel Gehrke with The Washington Examiner. Please, go ahead.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Thanks for doing this when you’re under the weather. Wondered what you think of the – of Italy’s president traveling to Moscow today at the same time that Italy is hosting – or was hosting – the G7 summit. Obviously, the State Department has welcomed bilateral relations between countries in the past, but are you worried that, especially following on meetings between their foreign ministries, that Minister Alfano went to Moscow recently as well, that Italian policy could be moving away from U.S. policy, either with respect to economic sanctions or the resolution of the crisis in Libya?

MR TONER: Well, first of all, we appreciate Italy hosting the G7. Look, that’s a question for the Italian Government and the presidency to – as to why he chose this moment to travel to Moscow. But that’s – certainly we believe that he delivered a consistent message to the Russian leadership with respect to their behavior not only in Ukraine and other parts of Europe but certainly in the Middle East and in Syria.

No, we’re not concerned. We have a very strong bilateral relationship with Italy. We have a very strong relationship with – security relationship with Italy with – in the context of NATO. Italy’s a very strong friend and partner to the United States. And we believe, as I said, that regardless of who is meeting with Russian leadership, they’re hearing the same message.

Thanks, everybody, for joining me. I hope to be on camera tomorrow and not be sneezing or coughing quite as much. But thanks, everybody. I appreciate it. Take care.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:37 p.m.)

 

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 16, 2017

Mark C. Toner





Acting Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC




March 16, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT/SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



UNITED NATIONS



DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA



JAPAN/REGION



UNITED NATIONS



UKRAINE



NORTH KOREA/REGION



DEPARTMENT



UNITED NATIONS



TURKEY



DEPARTMENT



IRAQ/REGION


TRANSCRIPT:





Today's briefing was held off-camera, so no video is available.

2:07 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Thank you, and thanks to everyone for joining us in the final minutes of the Notre Dame-Princeton game. Anyway, I appreciate it. Earlier today – just a quick readout of the Secretary’s day in Tokyo – Secretary Tillerson met with Prime Minister Abe as well as Foreign Minister Kishida in Tokyo. The Secretary, of course, reaffirmed the strong and enduring friendship between our two nations as well as our commitment to the U.S.-Japan alliance, which serves as the cornerstone of peace and prosperity in the region. The Secretary also discussed our joint response to North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs as well as the need to deepen trilateral cooperation with the Republic of Korea in our response to North Korea’s continued provocations. The Secretary overnights in Tokyo and he’ll travel to Seoul and the Republic of Korea tomorrow.

One more thing at the top. There was a UN vote to control fetanyl – fentanyl, excuse me, precursors today, and it’s an important step toward reducing U.S. opioid overdoses. This was done by the UN Commission on Narcotics – on Narcotic Drugs, which voted unanimously today to internationally control the two most common chemicals used by criminals to produce the toxic drug fentanyl. This vote means that nearly 200 countries will be obligated to establish controls domestically over the two leading precursors used for fentanyl, which is helping fuel the U.S. opioid epidemic. This swift action by the UN drug-control body which led to this vote exemplifies an effective international response to a drug crisis.

That’s all I have at the top. I’ll take your questions now.

OPERATOR: And just a quick reminder, ladies and gentlemen, if you have a question, *1. And we’ll go to Matthew Lee with the AP. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Thanks a lot. I hope you’re – I hope the Irish are doing okay on St. Patrick’s Day. I’m not able to see the game myself. But anyway, I got two budget questions for you. One, is it your understanding that – what is the State Department’s understanding of the percentage cut that this proposes? Because there are various numbers flying around. What is it that you guys here and at AID are working off of? And then I have a second one.

MR TONER: Sure. So – and I agree, there’s a little bit of confusion about that, so let me try to clarify it. The FY 2018 budget requests 25.6 billion in base funding for the Department of State and USAID, and that’s a 10.1 billion or 28 percent reduction from the FY 2017 continuing resolution level. So that’s a 28 percent reduction without the overseas contingency operations funding. So the budget also requests, obviously, 12 billion as overseas contingency operations funding for a total request of 37.6 billion, which represents an overall reduction of 17.3 billion. That’s 31 percent from the annualized – or from the CR level, which is base and OCO funds.

So just to simplify it, the two variations there – the 28 percent is the amount of reduction without OCO, which is the overseas contingency operations funding. The 31 percent number or figure is with that overseas contingency operations funding.

QUESTION: So you guys are using 31 then as the total?

MR TONER: That’s correct, which incorporates OCO. Correct.

QUESTION: Okay. And then after apologizing for getting St. Patrick’s Day a day early – (laughter) – moving to the other. The second one is: The blueprint that the White House put out assures the aid, the assistance, military assistance and other assistance to Israel, but doesn’t mention other things that are assured. And I’m just wondering, can you say now that the administration is or will meet its treaty obligations to other countries? And by that, I’m specifically referring to commitments that arise out of the U.S. role as part negotiator and guarantor of both the Israel-Egypt and Israel-Jordan peace agreements.

MR TONER: Matt, so you’re correct in that our assistance to Israel is, if I could say, a cutout on the budget, and that’s guaranteed, and that reflects, obviously, our strong commitment to one of our strongest partners and allies. With respect to other assistance levels, foreign military assistance levels, those are still being evaluated and decisions are going to be made going forward. So we’re still at the very beginning of the budget process, and in the coming months these are all going to be figures that we evaluate and look at hard, obviously bearing in mind some of our – or not some of our – our treaty obligations going forward. But we’ll have more details, obviously, when the final budget rolls out in May, I believe.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Next we’ll go to Kylie Atwood with CBS News. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark. Thank you. I have a question for you in regards to what the Secretary said in Japan this morning, early, which was that the President wants to make sure that the State Department is reflective of the fact that as time goes by, there will be fewer military conflicts that the U.S. will be directly engaged in. So I’m looking for you to provide a little bit of context on that rationale. In saying that, is he saying that as military conflicts go down, the State Department budget should go down as well?

And I have a follow-up, sorry.

MR TONER: Sure, sure, sure. Of course, of course. So I think – I mean – and he said this, obviously, in his message, and as many of you have seen has been reported in the press, he acknowledged that as our commitments overseas went down, that we expected to have to pay less in terms of assistance to some of these countries. I think he acknowledges the fact that we have been a country at war for going on 16 years now, and those conflicts have incurred a tremendous secondary cost in terms of assistance, in terms of development, in terms of, frankly, security and other commitments that have cost a tremendous amount of money over the past decade and a half.

I think – so that was the frame for those comments, and I think that as the Secretary absorbs that mandate from the President, he does so with the recognition that we’re going to be having less presence in future conflicts around the world, and acknowledges that that will cost less money. That’s the basic frame there. But that in no way should be seen as that we’re not going to continue to be heavily – or to continue to provide humanitarian assistance and other development assistance where we see fit and where we see that it could make a difference. But again, that’s part of the larger process here, which is evaluating how we spend taxpayer dollars and what’s the best value for that money, recognizing that over time, some of those assistance commitments change.

Go ahead. And what’s your follow-up? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Yep. And my follow-up was just: Could you provide any guidance on how the State Department is working with the Department of Defense on these budget cuts? Especially because there were certain bureaus, such as the Political-Military Affairs Bureau, that work very closely with DOD. So is there the thought that the work that they do could just be transferred over there? Could you talk a little bit about that?

MR TONER: I don’t want to get out ahead of anything or propose anything that is under discussion, but I can certainly assure you that we are working very closely with the Department of Defense on these proposed budget figures. And obviously, as I said, mindful of the fact that – and the Secretary was very clear on this – that we need to ensure that our frontline diplomats at our missions overseas, especially in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, have the resources, the personnel they need.

Again, this is about putting America’s security foremost on the agenda, but recognizing that, and recognizing the vital role that our diplomats play in that process, we’re going to make sure, and the Secretary was very clear on this, that it’s not a matter of necessarily cutting across the board, but it’s rather re-defining priorities for the State Department. And one of those is how we defend the national security of the United States, or better defend the national security of the United States going forward. So that’s a discussion we’re certainly having with the Department of Defense.

Next question.

OPERATOR: We’ll go to Tracy Wilkinson with The Los Angeles Times. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, thank you. Hi, Mark. Back to the – something that Matt was asking – and these are all budget questions. I have several budget questions. So Israel is the only country that has been assured in this budget that their assistance will continue? That’s one question.

Second question is: Looking over all of these cuts, do you see any bright spot? Is there any program that has been salvaged of many that are – that seem to be cut?

And finally, the third question is: Nikki Haley, yesterday or the day before, was talking about another billion dollars against human trafficking at the UN. So how do you reconcile something like that with these kinds of cuts? Thank you.

MR TONER: Sure. So going back to your first question on – with respect to Israel, that is correct. It was the only one that was singled out or cut out of – in the budget that we will maintain our commitment to Israel.

With respect to your second question, what are some of the bright spots – look, I would just say that this is about looking at ways that we can find greater efficiencies within the State Department. And I think that having a leader like Secretary Tillerson, somebody who comes out of the business world, who is used to running a profit-making corporation, is very good at finding those efficiencies, using resources the right way and personnel the right way in order to ensure that the mission is being accomplished. And again, I think going forward, that’s what we’re going to be looking at, is what the core priorities are for the department and how do we get there and how do we look at things differently to make sure we’ve allocated the right resources, the right personnel, in the right way.

With respect to other bright spots, if you could call it that, we’re certainly going to maintain strong funding within the UN. We already carry our weight significantly in the UN with respect to humanitarian assistance, with respect to peacekeeping. But we’re also going to be looking for other countries to stand up and do more. And that’s been a very clear message in this budget. It’s a very clear signal to our partners and allies around the world that we need to see more action on their part. As I said, the U.S. certainly carries its weight within the UN organization. I don’t think there’s any argument against that. I would also note that there’s significant funding maintained for the very successful PEPFAR program as well as other humanitarian assistance programs or humanitarian programs.

Your last question was about Nikki Haley. I forgot it now. I’m sorry.

QUESTION: She talked about a billion dollars, I think it was, for anti-human trafficking programs at a time that you here are talking about cutting back.

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, again, this is going to be a conversation that we’re having going forward. Again, we’re still – and I know I said this a lot, but we’re still in early days here. We recognize, I think, the challenge in front of us. The Secretary was very clear in his note to the personnel within the State Department. There are – this is a challenge. We’re looking at a restricted budget. Nobody’s deluded about that. We’re very clear-eyed about the challenge here. And that means looking at, as I said, a range of programs across the board, but looking at them with an eye towards where can we find efficiencies, where can we cut cost but not lose effectiveness. This isn’t about necessarily abandoning certain priorities with respect to others. It’s about trying to find ways to do more with a little bit less.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: That’s from Anne Gearan with The Washington Post. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Could you expand a little bit, please, on the Secretary’s remarks in Tokyo this morning about 20 years of failure in diplomacy in dealing with North Korea? Are – could you point to a couple of things he – specifically that he sees as failure and evidence of failure and where he would like to actually see changes?

MR TONER: Well, the Secretary made a very valid point and had a very, I think, strong – used a very strong figure, in the sense that he said that we’ve spent over $1.3 billion in assistance between 1995 and 2008, that we’ve provided North Korea with over $1.3 billion in assistance. I think 50 percent of that was for food assistance; 40 percent of that was for energy assistance. And really, we’re still at the same place, if not even a worse place, with North Korea. I think there’s a recognition that certain mechanisms, like the Six-Party Talks, haven’t really borne the fruit that we would have liked to have seen them bear over the years. But again, I don’t want to necessarily – nor does he want – to condemn past efforts. I think all the – all of these past efforts were undertaken with an eye towards finding ways to bring North Korea back into a discussion about its nuclear program and how to address concerns about its nuclear program.

But I think, given the recent spate of missile tests and nuclear tests, that we need to look anew on how we do what we’re already doing more effectively with respect to sanctions, but also look at new options. I don’t want to get ahead of these discussions. I don’t want to preview what might come out of the discussions he’s having in Seoul, he’s already had in Tokyo, and will have also in Beijing, except to say that this is a time of real concern. The threat, frankly, has increased. And it’s a threat not just to our allies and partners in the region, but to U.S. national security interests. So with that in mind, we’re looking at whatever options we have.

Next question.

OPERATOR: We’ll go to Mariko de Freytas of Kyodo. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Thanks for taking this question. I had a question on the DPRK. So the Japanese legislators have been discussing whether Japan should have a first-strike capability. And again, we discussed about the Secretary’s mention of the failed North Korean policy – diplomatic policy. But does the U.S. support the idea of either Japan or the U.S. having first-strike capabilities? And I have a follow-up. Thank you.

MR TONER: Well, with respect to your question, again, I just would say that Japan’s one of our closest allies and global partners. We do welcome Japan’s ongoing efforts to strengthen the alliance and play a more active role in regional and international security activities. Already it’s made important contributions that include sending forces, support, and reconstruction forces to Iraq and Kuwait; it’s deployed peacekeepers in South Sudan and Haiti; it’s conducted refueling activities in the Indian Ocean. So Japan has increasingly proven itself an important ally.

The last part of your question was? I forget.

QUESTION: Well, you’re talking about all these other countries, but I wanted to know specifically on North Korea whether you support first-strike capability or not.

MR TONER: I’m not going to – again, I’m not going to get ahead of discussions that we might be having with Japan, except to say that we are very clear in our treaty obligations to the security of the Japanese people.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: Next question, please.

QUESTION: Sorry. I had one more --

MR TONER: Oh, go ahead.

QUESTION: -- (laughter) – which you might not want to answer.

MR TONER: It’s okay. Go ahead. No, I’m --

QUESTION: But – and you might give me the same answer. But in any case, are you worried that if the Japanese had this first-strike capability whether it might increase regional tensions and jeopardize the prospect for a successful North Korea policy?

MR TONER: Look, I’m not going to get ahead of things. I’m not going to discuss hypotheticals. I’ll stay where I was, which is that what I can assure you is that we are committed to the security of Japan, and that’s our main objective here as we go forward. Thanks.

OPERATOR: And our next question is from Said Arikat with Al Quds. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, Mark, for doing this. I have a couple quick questions. Mark, yesterday, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for West Asia, ESCWA, released a report, which explicitly accused Israel of the crime of apartheid. Consequently, I think the United States has urged the (inaudible) to withdraw it. Could you give us – could you comment on this and why is it doing that and some of the things that are being done? Are they not sort of emblematic of some sort of apartheid kind of activities by the Israeli occupier?

MR TONER: Thanks, Said. Look, we stand by Ambassador Haley’s comments yesterday and her demand that the UN secretary-general withdraw a report by the UN Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia. We were outraged by it, we felt that it was anti-Israel propaganda, and the fact that this came from a body whose membership nearly universally does not recognize Israel’s existence is, frankly, not surprising.

With respect to – we did, frankly – or we do think the United Nations secretariat was right to distance itself from this report, but again, we want to see it go farther and withdraw the report altogether. And we certainly stand by our ally, Israel, and we’re going to continue to oppose bias and anti-Israel actions across the UN system and around the world.

Do you have a follow-up, Said?

QUESTION: Well, Mark, if I may – now, how could you – if they don’t withdraw it, what will the United States do?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to predict what next steps we might take. I can only reiterate that we strongly condemn the report, and we’re calling for the UN secretary-general to take appropriate action. Again, these are, frankly, the kind of biased reports that we see far too often from various UN bodies that only undermine the UN’s credibility.

Next question.

OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Dmitry Kirsanov with ITAR-TASS. Please, go ahead. Dmitry Kirsanov, your line is open if you’re on mute, possibly.

QUESTION: Hi, can you hear me?

MR TONER: Yes, I can. Thanks, Dmitry.

QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Listen, I wanted to ask you about an economic blockade of Donbas announced yesterday by the Ukrainian Government. My question is, is the U.S. administration comfortable with that step, and do you think it does or does not violate the spirit and letter of the Minsk agreements?

MR TONER: So thanks for the question, Dmitry. We’re closely monitoring this blockade in eastern Ukraine. I just want to underscore the importance of resolving the issue peacefully and in a way that supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity within its internationally recognized borders. I’m going to have to refer you, for more specifics, to the government of Ukraine for additional comment.

With respect to the Minsk agreements, I think it’s a fluid situation, but it is one with potentially serious consequences, and that’s why we want to see this resolved. We want to see it resolved peacefully and, as I said, in a way that supports Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

Thanks, Dmitry. Next question.

OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Michele Kelemen with NPR. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. I wanted to go back to today we talked about with Anne, you talked about the Six-Party Talks failing. I’m wondering is this administration open to direct negotiations with Pyongyang? And why did the Secretary feel the need to talk about how North Korea and its people need not fear the U.S.?

MR TONER: So with respect to the Six-Party Talks, I wanted to – let me just clarify, and I thought I said this before, is that we felt it – and I think that’s no surprise to anyone – it hasn’t fulfilled its potential. We’ve said this many times before that we don’t need a mechanism to hold talks for talks’ sake. And that’s – frankly, the onus is on North Korea to approach any talks that we have, whether it’s in the Six-Party format in any other format, in a way that is productive and in a way that addresses the international community’s serious concern about its actions.

With respect to Secretary Tillerson’s comments – I’m sorry, again, about – what was your question?

QUESTION: North Korean people need not fear the U.S. --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- and we seek to live in peace.

MR TONER: Sure. Well, I think that’s a message that we always want to convey to the North Korean people, that this isn’t about them. This isn’t directed at them, it’s directed at the threat that their government, the regime that controls North Korea, is projecting across the Peninsula, the Korean Peninsula, but increasingly towards Japan and towards the United States. And so this isn’t about any animosity or any threat towards the Korean people. And also I think he’s trying to underscore the fact that we want to resolve this in a way that allows for the peaceful and diplomatic resolution of our concerns. That’s not to say we ever take any option off the table, but I think it’s – it speaks to the fact that we are ready – if and when North Korea seriously approaches any negotiations, we are ready to have those kinds of negotiations and address concerns about its nuclear program.

Any other follow-up?

QUESTION: One. One real quickly is about the executive order. On the refugee program, are you still looking – regardless of what happens in the court cases, is the refugee number still going to be 50,000, or does it revert back to 100,000 if the EO doesn’t go through?

And then separately, some human rights groups are expressing concern about anti-LGBT representatives at a UN meeting, that the U.S. has sent these people to a UN meeting on women’s rights. I’m wondering if you have any explanation for that.

MR TONER: Sure. Your first question, and then – so the court order obviously enjoins enforcement of Section 6 of the EO, which is the section that deals with the refugees and incoming refugees, and we’re certainly going to comply with the court order. With respect to your specific question, we’re consulting with our attorneys, including at the Department of Justice, on specific implementation. And I don’t – it would be premature, frankly, to get ahead of those kinds of consultations at this point, so – which is to say I don’t have a solid answer for you yet on that, whether that cap is still valid or not.

With respect to – you were asking about the UN Commission on the Status of Women, right?

QUESTION: That there’s some anti-LGBT representatives from the United States.

MR TONER: So a couple of points on this, but first of all, the public delegates to the Commission on the Status of Women are not U.S. Government employees. They’re not authorized to negotiate or speak on behalf of the United States. I think the United States seeks to include, though, individuals from civil society – society organizations with diverse viewpoints in order to observe the UN in action during the CSW, the Commission on the Status of Women, as public delegates. And during that time, they’re allowed to attend formal meetings as well as side events. With respect to some of the allegations, I’m going to have to refer you to the White House, since they specifically deal with appointing these delegates.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Ilhan Tanir with Washington Hatti. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you. Thank you, Mark, for taking my question. Two quick questions: First, it’s just yesterday Washington Post ran an editorial asking U.S. administration whether to speak up against downward spiral in Turkey when it comes to human rights and press freedom. As you know well, over 150 journalists right now in jail, and Turkey is going to referendum. There are many pressures on the opposition as well. What’s your view on these human right issues in Turkey?

MR TONER: Sure, thanks for the question. Look, the United States has a long record of speaking out privately and publicly on human rights and fundamental freedoms, and that includes Turkey. All of you know that. We urge Turkey to respect and ensure freedom of expression, fair trial guarantees, judicial independence, and other essential freedoms. We also firmly believe in freedom of expression, and that any freedom of expression, including for speech and the media – and that includes also speech that some may find controversial or uncomfortable – only strengthens a democracy and it needs to be protected.

With respect to the constitutional referendum, I’ve said this before, I’ll say it again: This is a matter for the Turkish people to debate and decide.

I’m going to take just two more questions, so next question, please.

OPERATOR: And we’ll go to Jean Chemnick with E&E News. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks for taking my call. So the budget seems to eliminate the Global Climate Change Initiative, and that funded the UNFCCC dues, IPCC dues, a whole bunch of other programs. Would any of those programs be picked up by other funding sources within this budget or can we assume that we are going to be in arrears of our dues on the UNFCCC and IPCC and other things?

MR TONER: So I’m going to give you a bit of a non-answer, but it’s predicated on the fact that we’re still going through all this and figuring this out, to be perfectly honest. This is – as I said before, these are early days. You’re right in that the FY 2018 request does not include funding for the Green Climate Fund or the Global Climate Change Initiative, but I don’t have additional details about how or what we may fund going forward. These are all questions that we’re going to try to answer in the next couple of months as we approach a final budget in May.

Final question, please.

OPERATOR: And that’s from Laurie Mylroie with Kurdistan W-24. Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: Thank you, Mark, for taking my question. Can you explain what is being done to bring ISIS members to justice for the genocide against Yezidis? Amal Clooney spoke eloquently about that issue last week, and the UN Ambassador Haley said that the U.S. is committed – or she tweeted, “The U.S. is committed to bringing ISIS to justice, not just on the battlefield, but in the judicial system as well.”

So I want to know, what are you doing on this issue?

MR TONER: Sure. First of all, we’re appalled by the horrific acts being committed by ISIS against people from a wide variety of ethnic and religious groups in Iraq and Syria, and that includes, of course, the Yezidis. We’re working with these communities and the government – and the Government of Iraq to facilitate their safe return to their ancestral homes. That’s first and foremost.

And our ambassador to Iraq, for example, just completed a visit to Bashiqa in northern Iraq, where he met with Yezidi and Christian communities to better understand and assess their situation on the ground. We also, of course, welcomed the determination by the House of Representatives last year with respect to the genocide of Yezidis, and we stand with all the innocent victims of ISIS’s inhumanity. And we’re working with our partners – and this can’t be underscored enough – we’re working with our partners around the world to defeat ISIS and destroy ISIS and eradicate it from both Iraq and Syria and wherever else it extends its tentacles to.

We’re also continuing to strongly support efforts to collect, document, preserve, and analyze the evidence of atrocities, and do all that we can to see that the perpetrators of these atrocities are held accountable. And as I said, that starts with eliminating, defeating ISIS both on and off the battlefield.

I’m going to end there, guys. Thanks so much for joining us and have a great afternoon.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:40 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 14, 2017

Mark C. Toner





Acting Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC




March 14, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TILLERSON'S TRAVEL



UNITED ARAB EMIRATES



DEPARTMENT



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SECRETARY TILLERSON'S TRAVEL



UNITED ARAB EMIRATES/SAUDI ARABIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



DEPARTMENT



SECRETARY TILLERSON'S TRAVEL



CHINA



DEPARTMENT



CANADA



DEPARTMENT



NORTH KOREA



TURKEY/THE NETHERLANDS



DEPARTMENT



BAHRAIN


TRANSCRIPT:





Today's briefing was held off-camera, so no video is available.

2:04 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Thanks very much. And thanks for everyone for joining us on this snowy afternoon.

Just briefly at the top I wanted to mention, obviously, as many of you know, Secretary Tillerson is wheels-up in a couple of hours en route to Japan, the first leg of his three-country tour of Asia. He’ll also go to South Korea – Republic of Korea, as well as China.

He did meet with the United Arab Emirates foreign minister this morning, Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed al-Nahyan today, where they discussed bilateral and regional issues, including the conflicts in Yemen, in Libya, the fight to defeat ISIS, and other counterterrorism efforts. The UAE is a key U.S. partner in the region. Secretary Tillerson and Foreign Minister al-Nahyan affirmed their mutual intention to continue to deepen the bilateral relationship between our two countries.

With that, I’ll take your questions.

OPERATOR: And it looks as if our first question comes from the line of Said Arikat from Al Quds. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hello, Mark. Thank you for doing this. I have three quick questions for you. I’m glad to be the first one in line. Can you hear me, Mark?

MR TONER: Yes, I can.

QUESTION: Hello?

MR TONER: Yes, I can.

QUESTION: Okay, great. Okay. My first question is that it is reported that Secretary Tillerson told the Human Rights – the United Nations Human Rights Council that the U.S. will be compelled to leave unless there are some real reforms. I guess that is in reference to the alleged maltreatment of Israel. Could you comment on that?

MR TONER: Sure. I’m aware of the article; I’ve seen the report. I don’t want to speak or address specifics of any correspondence that the Secretary may have had with these NGOs, beyond saying that it’s fair to say we’re having discussions about – and that’s internal discussions, meaning within the State Department, but also with some of our partners – about how to increase transparency and accountability in human rights. But I’m not going to speak specifically to the contents of any letter or correspondence the Secretary may have shared.

Do you have an additional follow-up? Said?

QUESTION: Mark, if you allow me, very quick --

MR TONER: Yeah, please. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Okay. One, there was a report that Mr. Jason Greenblatt, the envoy from the White House, warned the Palestinians that Congress intends to cut off all aid to the Palestinians unless payment to attackers is completely stopped and incitement is completely stopped. One, can you confirm that? And second, do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: I’m not going to confirm that. I can confirm that he did meet with President Abbas – he being Jason Greenblatt – met with President Abbas in Ramallah earlier today. They did have a positive and far-ranging exchange about the current situation. And they did discuss how to make progress toward peace. They also spoke about building the capacity of Palestinian security forces, as well as efforts to stop incitement. But I’m not going to speak to that specific claim.

Ready for the next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Arshad Mohammed of Reuters. Your line is open. Mr. Mohammed, your line is open for us.

QUESTION: Can you hear me?

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark. I have a series of short questions, so if you’d let me do some follow-ups, please. Question one: You note that Secretary Tillerson will be wheels-up in a couple of hours en route to Asia. Is he, in fact, taking any journalists with him?

MR TONER: I’d have to take the question. I’m not sure if there was a seat that was available in the plane. As you know, it was a small airplane; we could not accommodate press. We were trying to finalize logistics. I’m not actually on this trip, but I’d have to take that question. Do you have an additional one?

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, they’re all related.

MR TONER: Okay. Go ahead. Yep.

QUESTION: I mean, you’re two hours and six minutes from takeoff. Is it really so hard to find out whether there’s a reporter on the plane?

MR TONER: Again, I haven’t been handling logistics around this particular trip, so I’m going to have to take the question. I do know that they were considering a seat, having a – or if there was a possibility of having a seat available. All that said, it’s a small airplane. There’s limited seats available. We’ve been very clear in our discussions with the media about that. We’ve been very clear, frankly, that this is a smaller footprint all around, and this is the Secretary’s decision, to travel with a smaller footprint. And in some degree – or to some degree, it’s a cost-saving measure.

That said, we’ve also made the point that I think there’s going to be 20-some media in each of the cities that he’ll visit on the ground, U.S. media, that we’ll accommodate, that we’ll provide logistics for. We’ll make sure that they get into the photo sprays and, in a couple cases, press avails that he’s going to be holding. So we’ll still have that access available to these individuals.

Did you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: (Inaudible) if I may. One, you’re aware that Secretary Powell took a small plane to Greenland in, I think, August of 2004. He found room for a reporter. Is the plane even smaller than that? I mean, if he was able to take one, why can’t Secretary Tillerson? And then the second question is you made a point about reducing cost. Is it not the case that media who travel with the Secretary of State have always paid for the cost of their air travel plus their hotels, plus additional imputed charges for ground services, such as buses and vans in a motorcade?

MR TONER: They have paid a degree of those costs. But I’d refer you to the Office of the Comptroller at the Department of Defense, who can do a deep dive on how those costs are really reflected in the overall costs of the actual air trip. I don’t mean to get into that breakdown, nor is it my place to discuss that kind of – get into that financial breakdown on this call. But those are representative costs, what the tickets – or the price or the fees that journalists pay for those flights, but does not reflect the overall cost of operating that aircraft.

I think, again, I want to make the point going forward that we’re going to make every effort in future trips to have a contingent of press onboard that plane. And I’ve been very clear about that since last week.

All right. Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Barbara Usher of CBC. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Thank you. That’s BBC, actually. Mark, I also have three short questions, so if you’ll allow me to follow up as well. My first question is about the meeting with the foreign minister of the UAE today. This week there’s been also a meeting with the Saudi Arabian foreign minister, and both of those have been closed press. Can you tell us why the Gulf foreign ministers have closed press and others do not, it seems? I mean, is there some particular reason for that?

MR TONER: No, not in particular. I think we did official photographers this morning. We usually work that out, those kinds of protocols, with the visiting dignitary or counterpart. I’d have to, frankly, look into it to understand – or to get a better, clearer understanding of why there was no photo spray. But I don’t think it was any kind of particular reason why we didn’t do it with these two individuals.

Next question. I mean, for you, Barbara. Go ahead.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.) Just two other quick questions. One is there are reports that the Russians have deployed military forces to an Egyptian base near the Libyan border, presumably or possibly to – as part of their effort to support al-Haftar in Libya. Are you aware of that, or is the U.S. aware of that? And does – do you have any concerns about this?

And then I have one quick question about Lieberman after that.

MR TONER: I’d have to, with respect to Russian airplanes in Egypt, I’d just have to refer you to the Russians to speak to that. I don’t have any additional details on that. What was your final question? Sorry, I apologize.

QUESTION: It’s about Lieberman, the foreign minister of Israel. It’s been reported that he presented to Mr. Tillerson and State Department officials his land swap plan, which has been around for some time. And I wondered if you could confirm that and whether that was seriously in the mix of options being considered going forward.

MR TONER: I can’t confirm that. And I wouldn’t get into the specific details of the options that we’re looking at, except to say, as we’ve said over the past week or so, that we are looking at different options, but we’re talking to both sides. Hence the reason for Greenblatt’s trip to the region – to hear perspectives, to hear ideas on a way forward, to get back to a place where we can proceed with – or get to a place where we can consider getting negotiations back up and running. But as to specific details on the components of that, what that might look like, I just can’t speak to it at this time.

Next question.

OPERATOR: It will come from the line of Michelle Kosinski of CNN. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi. Thanks, Mark. A quick question. So you said that you’re not sure if the Secretary is going to fill that seat with a reporter. But if he were to do that, that would be someone handpicked, that he chose? Or how – I guess, what’s the protocol for that process at this point? Even if you don’t know if that seat has been filled, how is the plan laid for potentially filling it?

And my second question is about the New York attorney general sending a letter to the New York State supreme court judge trying to get ExxonMobil to comply with the subpoena to turn over these emails from then-CEO Tillerson. My question is: Does Tillerson have any – what’s his feeling on these emails? What can we say is his stance regarding the second email address in which he at times discussed climate change? Thanks, Mark.

MR TONER: Sure, thanks. So I’ll answer your second question first. The – with respect to the story and reports of the email address that he allegedly used while he was in – was CEO of Exxon or at Exxon, I would have to refer you to Exxon for any questions about that. I don’t have any details. It predates, obviously, his time here at the State Department.

But I will speak broadly, anticipating maybe a follow-up. I know I got one follow-up from one of – one reporter this morning, so I wanted to put out there that with respect to how he uses email now as Secretary of State, he uses only his Department of State email address to conduct official business, and he does comply with all federal record-keeping requirements.

With respect to your question about whether there’s journalists or not on the plane, again, I’m not going to get into how we choose or how that decision’s made. I’m not on this flight – I’m not on this trip, rather – but in general, you know that this is a process that we usually work out with the press corps. But I would say it is our prerogative to make the choice as to who from the media sits on the plane – again, with the understanding that we’re going to do all we can to accommodate those U.S. media who are on the ground at each of the three stops, to give them logistical support, to provide access to the Secretary’s photo sprays and press avails where we can. That’s not going to go away. And again, going forward, we are going to make every effort to include a contingent of U.S. media on those – on the actual flights.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Our next question comes from the line of Michele Kelemen of NPR. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Yeah, hi. Before my question, I just wanted to set the record straight that no one – that this wasn’t worked out with the current press corps if indeed there’s somebody on the plane today.

As for my question, I’m wondering, is climate change going to at all be a topic that he discusses in China, or does he recuse himself from those sorts of issues?

And secondly, on a separate issue, we’re expecting big cuts in funding for the United Nations, and I’m just wondering what are you – how are you planning to talk about this? Are you going to have any briefings to the press corps, to the UN press corps about the budget this week?

MR TONER: Yeah, hi. Sorry, Michele. So with respect to climate change, broadly speaking, you know this administration’s conducting a broad review of international climate issues. Secretary Tillerson, though, did speak about the fact that this is a problem that requires a global response, and he believes that the United States needs to be in those discussions, needs to be at the table in discussions about how to address it. And I can’t rule out that he won’t – or that he will raise this, rather, in his discussions, especially with China, with whom we’ve had cooperation on climate issues, especially in the run-up to the Paris Agreement. This is, again, among the many issues that we do work with and cooperate with China on.

I’m sorry, I went – I forgot your last --

QUESTION: On UN funding. I mean, are – how are you going to sort of explain to the public what you’re planning on doing on UN funding? I mean, this is a time when the UN is talking about famines in four countries and 20 million people at risk of starvation. Why is this the time to cut funding to the United Nations?

MR TONER: Well, again, I’m not going to speak to any reporting about impending budget cuts. And the reason I’m not is because I think it’s important that as the budget – we’re early – as I said, we’re early in the process with respect to budget numbers. It’s an ongoing conversation, so for me to speak to a number today or a possible cut today, it may be very different – look very differently a couple weeks or months down the road. As we get information available, we’ll of course share it with you, but I think I’m going to wait for the President’s budget outline on Thursday. And then, of course, as I said, we’ll make sure we inform the press on State’s posture going into the budget process.

I would just say, broadly speaking, there’s many U.S. agencies, and that certainly includes State Department and USAID, who contribute funds to international organizations and depend on the work that these organizations do to advance U.S. national interests. I certainly understand where you come from when you mention the plethora of humanitarian crises around the world. The U.S. has been a leading contributor to humanitarian assistance efforts, especially with respect to Syria but elsewhere in the world, and we’re going to do – continue to do what we can to help in that regard.

Do you have a follow-up, Michele?

QUESTION: Sure. On Thursday, when this comes out, I mean, are you going to have some budget experts come and talk to us about the decisions that were made?

MR TONER: Again, I’d let the President and the White House speak to the President’s budget outline on Thursday. We’ll do our best to answer questions about our specific role in that, but we just need to see where we’re at in the process and what we can talk about. Again, I just don’t want to get out ahead of a process that’s going to take a few months to materialize.

Thanks. Next question.

OPERATOR: Comes from the line of Tejinder Singh of IAT. Your line is open.

QUESTION: Hi, good afternoon. Thanks for doing this, Mark. Can you confirm that the Canadian Girl Guides which has – they have more than 70,000 members – have canceled all trips to the U.S. until further notice?

MR TONER: Sorry, you’re talking about the Girl Guides of Canada?

QUESTION: Of Canada and also (inaudible).

MR TONER: Yeah. Go – I’m sorry, let me answer that. So I’ve seen the reports. I’d obviously refer you to their organization to speak to the reasons why they’re canceling their travel. I would simply add that or say that Canadian passport holders are not affected by the executive order, and of course legal residents of Canada who hold passports of a restricted country can apply for an immigrant or non-immigrant visa to the United States if the individual presents that passport and proof of legal resident status to a consular officer.

But with respect to the decisions about travel to the United States, that’s up to them to speak to. I would only add that we’re confident that the U.S. remains a premier travel destination for many people around the world, and we’re confident that that will remain.

Do you have a follow-up, Tejinder?

QUESTION: Yeah. On that last sentence that became – I know we don’t talk about the individual visas and others. Can you just but let us know that if there has been a drop in visa applications around the globe or they are on the rise?

MR TONER: So preliminary data – and I stress preliminary – but it does suggest that visa applications have not, in fact, decreased. But of course, as I said, visa demand fluctuates, but what we’ve seen thus far is there’s been no decrease in visa applications.

Next question.

OPERATOR: Comes from the line of Deborah Pettit of NBC News.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark. Thanks for taking our calls. How are you?

MR TONER: I’m good, thanks. I’m sorry, I put it on mute, but go ahead. I’m --

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Okay. I’m asking a question for our London bureau, who is doing a story about the American student who is held in North Korea – Otto Warmbier. You familiar with that?

MR TONER: Of course I’m familiar with this case, yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. Anyways, tomorrow will be the first-year anniversary and there hasn’t seemed to have been any progress. Do you have anything to comment on that first anniversary or any update you can give us on his welfare?

MR TONER: Oh, I’m sorry, was I – okay. I apologize. Did you hear the first part of my answer? Hello?

QUESTION: I didn’t, Mark.

MR TONER: Okay, I apologize.

QUESTION: That’s okay.

MR TONER: With respect to Otto Warmbier and the anniversary of his incarceration, look, our concern about his welfare is very well known. We believe that he’s being held unjustly. He’s gone through the criminal process and he’s been detained for, as you noted, more than a year. We believe his sentence of 15 years’ hard labor is unduly harsh – harsh, rather – for the actions that Mr. Warmbier allegedly took. And we urge North Korea to pardon him and grant him special amnesty and immediate release on humanitarian grounds. We would also like to see our – or have, rather, access to him – regular access through our protecting power, which I believe is the Swedish embassy.

More broadly speaking, I just have to reiterate, take this moment – occasion to say that we strongly discourage any travel by any U.S. citizens to North Korea given how they are treated, Mr. Warmbier’s case only being the most recent one. We urge any U.S. citizen considering travel to North Korea to visit our website, travel.state.gov, and to heed the warning there against traveling to North Korea.

Do you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: Is Secretary Tillerson going to make any inquiries or is that going to be part of a discussion that might happen on this trip?

MR TONER: Hard to say. It’s not that it’s not considered an important issue, and, of course, North Korea and its bad behavior and its continued bad behavior, frankly, is going to be a very high priority in the discussions that he’s going to have in each of his three stops.

But certainly, we raise in multiple fora ways that we can try to get Mr. Warmbier back home. Look, the safety and security of American citizens abroad is probably our highest priority at the State Department. I think we’ve shown our track record over the years that we never lose sight of individuals like Mr. Warmbier who are, we believe, held unjustly by governments or entities overseas. We’re going to continue to press for his, as I said, his amnesty, and we’re going to keep his case at the forefront.

Next question.

OPERATOR: Comes from the line of Nicolas Revise of AFP.

QUESTION: Yes, good afternoon, Mark. Thank you for doing this. Yesterday we had a U.S. official expressing concern about the diplomatic spat between Turkey and the Netherlands, but since then, the situation has been getting worse and worse, especially from the Turkish side. So how much are you concerned about this war of words between the Netherlands and Germany on one side, and Turkey on the other side?

MR TONER: Sure, thanks for the question. Look, it’s a bilateral matter between the governments of the Netherlands and Turkey. Both countries are NATO allies, and we would call on them to avoid escalatory rhetoric and engage one another with mutual respect and try to resolve the differences in this matter.

Do you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: Yes. Don’t you think – who is to blame for this war of words? Is it President Erdogan or other – Germany and the Netherlands because of the very tense political context?

MR TONER: Yeah, I think I’ll leave it where I just left it, which is we want to see both sides avoid escalatory rhetoric and work together to try to resolve the situation. Again, these are two strong allies, two strong partners within NATO. We work closely with both these countries. We want to see them, obviously, cooperate and get along. So I’ll leave it there.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Will come from the line of Curt Mills of US News and World Report.

QUESTION: Yes, hey. Hello, Mark, can you hear me?

MR TONER: Sure can.

QUESTION: Yes. Okay, so there was a report – a couple of reports last week, one in The Daily Mail that alleged that non-U.S. citizens are being told that they can’t arrange tours at the White House, and some web – some embassy websites seem to indicate that there’s been some sort of change in procedure with the new administration. Is there any veracity to these reports?

MR TONER: Hey, thanks for the question, actually, because we’ve gotten some questions about this last week as well. Look, I’d have to refer you to the White House, but it’s not true. And I think they have to go through the embassy, if that’s correct, to get on these tours. But certainly, there is no discouragement with respect to UK or any foreign – foreigner – foreign government – or, rather, foreign tourists visiting the White House.

Thanks. Sorry, couple – a few more questions, please.

OPERATOR: Sure. The next will come from Kylie Atwood of CBS News.

QUESTION: Hey, Mark. Thank you for doing this. Just want to go back to the email question for a minute. And you were very clear in saying that the Secretary is complying by federal rules on recordkeeping, but I just want to clarify: So is Secretary Tillerson using a personal email address in addition to his State email address? And does he only have one State Department email address? And then I’ve got a follow-up to that.

MR TONER: Sure. He only uses a State Department – or a Department of State, rather, email address for the conduct of official business, and I can assure you he’s very disciplined about that. Similarly, he only uses an official phone number for conversations he may have with respect to his business. I’m simply unaware that he might have a – or whether he has a personal email address in addition. But in the conduct of official business, he only uses a Department of State email address. And your follow-up?

QUESTION: Follow-up is in regards to Janice Jacobs, who I think former Secretary Kerry had hired at the State Department to be a transparency coordinator. So is she still in that role? And if so, has she been meeting with the Secretary on these issues?

MR TONER: I can confirm that she’s still in that role and still meets regularly with senior staff – I don’t know if she’s sat down with the Secretary yet; I can only imagine she has – but to talk about all these issues, obviously realizing, as we discussed before, how important it is in today’s day and age to maintain and comply with federal recordkeeping requirements.

Next question, please.

OPERATOR: Will be Karen DeYoung of Washington Post.

QUESTION: Off the hook. My question’s already been asked. Thank you.

MR TONER: Great. Last question, guys. Sorry. I got to run. But last question, please.

OPERATOR: Looks like it’ll come from the line of Josh Lederman of Associated Press.

QUESTION: Hey. Thanks, Mark. I wanted to ask you about the crackdown on political dissent in Bahrain and specifically the change that the parliament has approved to allow the military courts to try civilians. Is that something you guys are concerned about? Have you talked to Bahrain about it? And I have a follow-up on that.

MR TONER: Sure, Josh. You’re talking about specifically the military courts? Is that what you’re talking about? Or --

QUESTION: Yeah, to try civilians in military courts --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- which some of the human rights groups are saying is basically martial law.

MR TONER: Understood. We’re aware of the amendment – I think it was recently passed by parliament, as you note – that expands the purview of military courts. We understand that it’s going to become official, once it’s affirmed by the King. I think we recognize the threats that Bahrain faces from terrorism in the region. We stand shoulder to shoulder with Bahrain and our other allies in the Gulf to counter any regional threats.

However, these are actions that must be in accordance with international legal obligations to protect human rights, so we urge the Government of Bahrain to ensure that all civilians retain the right to due process in all cases and to transparent judicial proceedings, in addition to the rights of freedom of expression and assembly.

Do you have a follow-up?

QUESTION: Yeah. I was just curious. I mean, there’s been a lot of talk about the Trump administration potentially delinking concerns about human rights to military aid, jets that we sell them, and I was curious if that’s a decision that the Secretary has come to yet.

MR TONER: Yeah, Josh, look, we’ve raised this particular issue, asked about it, as well as other human rights concerns, with the Government of Bahrain. We continue to do so. There’s been no easing up in that regard.

Great. Thanks, everyone, for joining us. I appreciate it. And I’ll see you all tomorrow on camera. Take care.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}

(The briefing was concluded at 2:35 p.m.)

The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.

Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 13, 2017

Mark C. Toner





Acting Spokesperson


Department Press Briefing





Washington, DC





March 13, 2017











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



SYRIA



IRAQ



SYRIA



CHINA/REGION



NORTH KOREA



DEPARTMENT



DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO



DEPARTMENT



SAUDI ARABIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:11 p.m. EDT

MR TONER: Hey, everybody. Happy Monday. I hope everyone had a good weekend.

I have just a few things at the top, and then I’ll get to your questions. First of all, just a few readouts, actually, from the Secretary’s meetings beginning last Friday and also this morning. Secretary Tillerson met on Friday morning with the ambassadors of the member-states of ASEAN, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, to hear views from Southeast Asia ahead of his first trip to the region. The Secretary and ambassadors discussed the continuation of the U.S.-ASEAN strategic partnership in this 40th anniversary year of U.S.-ASEAN relations. The Secretary also emphasized the important role the U.S. relationship with ASEAN plays in a peaceful and prosperous Asia Pacific region.

Earlier today, the Secretary met with the foreign minister of the Republic of Tunisia, Khemaies Jhinauoi. And forgive me if I mispronounced his first name. The Secretary noted the important security partnership between the United States and Tunisia and highlighted Tunisia’s progress on security and democratic reforms. They also discussed the importance of finding a resolution to the conflict in Libya and as – in Libya in order to bring stability to the region.

Also, Secretary Tillerson met today with Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Kotzias and reaffirmed the significance of the U.S.-Greek bilateral relationship. The Secretary and foreign minister also discussed the importance of building and sustaining security and stability across the region.

And lastly, Secretary Tillerson met with Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir today to discuss a number of critical bilateral, multilateral – or rather, regional issues, including, of course, the ongoing conflict in Yemen as well as broader counterterrorism efforts. The Secretary and foreign minister also discussed strengthening economic and commercial ties as well as U.S. support for Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 socio-economic reform program.

I’ll stop there and go over to you. Josh.

QUESTION: Thanks, Mark.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Jason Greenblatt from the White House is in the Middle East this week meeting with Israelis and Palestinians. Does the State Department have any representation in that delegation or involvement in the diplomacy that he’s doing over there right now?

MR TONER: Well, you are correct; he is headed to Israel and to the West Bank this – for the coming week. He’ll be meeting there with Israelis and Palestinians. He’ll have meetings with senior officials. He’ll be there to do a lot of listening, discussing the views of the leadership in the region, getting their perspectives on the current situation and how progress towards eventual peace can be made. He’ll meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu, he’ll meet with President Abbas. He’ll also meet with other Israeli and Palestinian officials, including security officials on both sides.

And this – I’d characterize it as the first of what will become many visits to the region. I can say that he’s been working closely with – obviously, within the NSC, but also with the State Department on this trip, and we’re of course supporting him on this trip and as well as a senior representative from the NSC who’s traveling with him. I can’t – I don’t know that we’ll have anybody from the State Department joining him on this trip. I’ll try to confirm that. But of course, our embassy will be supporting him on the ground, as well as our consulate.

Yeah, anyway.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. and Israel getting closer to the – any kind of an agreement on settlements that the President and Netanyahu had spoken about? I mean, is that a primary goal of this trip, to sort of wrap that issue up?

MR TONER: No. I mean, look – I think as I said, he’s really there to, as I say, get perspective, listen to both sides and how they come at looking forward to a peace process or how they perceive getting to a peace process that’s back on track. I think it’s part of him trying to, as I said, just get a good perspective on possible ways forward. I think settlements will obviously be a topic of discussion, but I wouldn’t predict there will be any kind of a resolution of that issue. I think, as we said earlier just a few weeks ago, with respect to settlements, we see them as a challenge that needs to be addressed at some point. But I think what’s mostly important for this trip is it’s an orientation trip for him to get – hear perspectives on the ground of how we can create a climate that leads to eventual peace negotiations.

QUESTION: Mark, could I stay on that just for a little bit?

MR TONER: Yeah, Said. Yeah, go ahead. Please.

QUESTION: Now, let me ask you the same question again: Has there been any coordination between Mr. Jason Greenblatt and the State Department before the – before their conversation?

MR TONER: Yes. Yes, and if I wasn’t definitive enough about that, yes, there was.

QUESTION: Okay, okay. And --

MR TONER: Yeah. I just don’t know – my question – my answer to Josh – I just wasn’t sure that there was anybody actually traveling with him from the State Department on this trip.

QUESTION: Now, I know last week you told us that Mr. Ratney will be assuming the file or whatever – the peace file – replacing Mr. Lowenstein.

MR TONER: No, I want to be very clear on that. He’ll – so he’ll be – he’ll have that portfolio within the front office of the --

QUESTION: Right, in addition – right --

MR TONER: I mean, I’m getting into – but he won’t be the – yeah.

QUESTION: In addition to the Syria issue, right?

MR TONER: Correct, yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. So has there been coordination between Mr. Greenblatt and Mr. Ratney?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Okay. All right. And let me ask you a couple more on the phone call between the President and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Was – did the President or the White House brief Secretary Tillerson on the call before or after?

MR TONER: I can only assume that he did. I’m not aware – I mean, I can’t confirm that, but that’s the normal --

QUESTION: You don’t know for sure whether he has spoken --

MR TONER: It’s a normal procedure for us to get --

QUESTION: It’s a normal procedure. Okay.

MR TONER: Also be consulted before a call and get briefed after the call --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- if not beyond the call.

QUESTION: Okay, now, let me – can I stay on the topic just for one more?

MR TONER: Sure thing.

QUESTION: A couple more. The Israeli authorities arrested a Palestinian novelist, a woman. She wrote a novel called The Jackal’s Trap, and they arrested her because apparently talk – she talks about the process of recruiting informants and so on and all these things. Are you aware of this issue?

MR TONER: I’m aware. I’ve seen the reports. I’m not in a position, obviously, to weigh in on every security incident or every security action that’s taken by Israeli authorities on the ground. I’m also not familiar with the novel. I’ve – like you, I’ve seen the title. Broadly speaking, we of course support freedom of speech, but I can’t speak to it beyond – I would just have to refer you to Israeli authorities.

QUESTION: All right. But it would be disturbing if you find out that she was arrested because of this novel, which is fiction, right?

MR TONER: Again, I think --

QUESTION: Writing literature and fiction should not be --

MR TONER: I mean, in all honesty, Said, I’d have to look at the novel and what it – and hear what the Israeli authorities’ concerns about it were. There are some times when even novels can reveal information or can incite in some ways, but as I said, generally speaking, not having read the novel, not having read any review of the novel, I’d just generally say we support freedom of expression.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Can we stay on the – I have just one more on – can you confirm that there was an – some kind of orientation briefing about the other players in this Middle East process? Because the – in the – all other – before this administration, there is always the European Union plays a role in the peace process and the things.

MR TONER: You’re talking about the peace process?

QUESTION: Yes. So is there – about settlements, about – because the EU money goes in into (inaudible), and – which gets destroyed, so Brussels is always unhappy about the Israeli actions.

MR TONER: I mean, generally speaking – and I’d refer you to the White House and – for the specific conversations that they may have had with members of the EU or with other states that are actively working towards Middle East peace, but generally speaking, we have those kinds of conversations all the time with the key players, mostly just to get a sense of, again, who’s doing what, who’s speaking to whom, and what are the prospects and how do we get back – I think the overall – just to get back to Josh’s question – and we’ve talked about this before, but what are the steps, constructive steps that both sides can take to put us back on a footing towards some kind of negotiated settlement I think is what we’re looking at now.

So we’re not there yet. I don’t expect any big announcements out of this trip. I think, again, it’s just an orientation trip for him to hear perspectives on the ground.

QUESTION: Iraq.

MR TONER: Please, Barbara.

QUESTION: Yeah, I have two questions, one on Syria and one in Iraq.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: Is there any discussion or preparation in this building for the day after in Raqqa in terms of U.S. civilian assistance after the fight for Raqqa is by and large completed?

MR TONER: With respect to Raqqa? I’m sorry.

QUESTION: U.S. civilian assistance.

MR TONER: I’m sorry. I apologize. There’s always day-after planning going on, especially with respect to when we – and we’ve talked about this a lot, is when we liberate, or when these forces liberate territory that is held by ISIS, one of the key factors is how quickly you can get in to restore basic infrastructure, restore electricity, basic services, and reestablish some kind of local governance. That’s the case in parts of Syria as well as certainly in Iraq, so that’s always something that we’re factoring in when we look at sort of next steps. But at this point we’re not there yet. Obviously, with Raqqa, I mean, we’re just – we’re still in a – taking steps to close the city and cut off any escape route for ISIS there.

QUESTION: But there’s a plan in the works or being developed for civilian assistance, U.S. civilian assistance afterwards?

MR TONER: I think we’re always looking at how we can provide follow-up assistance to these. I can’t speak in specifics with respect to Raqqa, but certainly with Mosul and other places in Iraq, that’s been a key component. I think with respect to northern Syria, we’ve talked about the need, again, to also – these liberating forces that go in afterwards, we’ve always stressed that we want to see local governance restored so that civilians can return home. But again, a component of that is humanitarian assistance; a component of that is re-establishing a climate or conditions that will allow people who have been displaced by the fighting to return.

QUESTION: And just in terms of Iraq, which you mentioned the day-after planning there --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- along the same lines for Mosul, has – have those plans or that discussion been affected in any way by the budget cut calculations?

MR TONER: I’m sorry, with respect to Iraq?

QUESTION: Yes, you know the --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the cuts to the State Department budget and foreign assistance. Has that affected the plans in Mosul for American assistance?

MR TONER: Not at all. Not at all. And a lot of that is because a lot of that money has already been set aside and already been, frankly, put into the pipeline for assistance. I mean, we’re looking at – it’s important when you’re looking about the – looking at the budget process, we’re looking a year ahead in terms of fiscal years, but right now the money has already been appropriated and sent to the Iraqi Government with respect to assistance, post-conflict assistance to Mosul.

QUESTION: Mark, you did not --

QUESTION: So Iraq --

MR TONER: You want to stay on Iraq?

QUESTION: Iraq.

QUESTION: Did you condemn the bombing in Damascus? I mean --

MR TONER: I’m sorry, did we condemn it?

QUESTION: There was a bombing in Damascus.

MR TONER: I’m aware of – I’m aware that there was a --

QUESTION: Okay. It was, like, 50 people were killed; they’re all pilgrims, Iraqi pilgrims.

MR TONER: I’m aware, yeah.

QUESTION: A hundred and twenty. Did you condemn that attack?

MR TONER: I’m not aware that we issued – from the State Department, we did not issue condolences but certainly --

QUESTION: Would there be any reason why you wouldn’t consider it a terror attack?

MR TONER: Certainly we express our condolences to the victims of any violent attack.

QUESTION: But you consider that to be a terrorist act? I mean, it was claimed by al-Nusrah.

MR TONER: Again, Said, I said we condemn and express our condolences, but I’m not aware we issued a statement.

QUESTION: Yes, on Iraq.

MR TONER: Let’s stay on Iraq. Let’s finish up with Iraq, guys.

QUESTION: Special Envoy McGurk was in Erbil today and he saw President Barzani. Could you give us a readout on that meeting?

MR TONER: Okay, let me take a step back because he did arrive in Baghdad on Saturday and then I’ll walk up to today. I don’t have much of a readout to provide, though, on the meeting because I think it just took place a few hours ago. But he did arrive in Baghdad on Saturday for consultations with a host of senior Iraqi leaders – that did include Prime Minister Abadi, Foreign Minister Jaafari, Defense Minister Hayali, and Parliament Speaker Jabouri – on the Mosul operation in general, but also our longer-term efforts to support Iraq’s reconstruction and stabilization post-ISIS. He was joined in his meetings by our ambassador to Iraq, Doug Silliman, as well as Lieutenant General Townsend, who is obviously leading coalition efforts on the – from Baghdad in our effort to fight against ISIS.

He also met with some members of UNDP in Iraq, and then he actually gave a press conference while he was in Baghdad and I would – I think we’ve got the transcript of that posted on our website.

He has been in Erbil today. He’s had meetings with senior leadership from the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, and that of course includes President Barzani; discussed again aspects of the Mosul campaign. He of course thanked Iraqi Kurdistan Region President Barzani for the tremendous sacrifice that Kurdish forces have made in not just liberating Mosul but other parts of Iraq that have been held by ISIS. He also commended the Iraqi Security Forces for their achievements on the battlefield. So, again, these were just, I think, efforts to – as we’ve been doing all along, just efforts to make sure that we’re very coordinated as we move through what has been a really difficult, but we believe will ultimately be a successful, campaign to liberate Mosul.

QUESTION: And do you know if in these discussions that McGurk had in Baghdad and Erbil whether there’s any more concrete notions about Mosul after the ISIS defeat, plans for Mosul?

MR TONER: In terms of what? In terms of just assistance or --

QUESTION: Well, assistance as well as the political change that President Barzani among others has said needs to occur to accommodate the wishes of the people --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and their perspectives so that we don’t have another ISIS to fight again.

MR TONER: I mean, look, I think – we’ve talked about this before and in essence it’s what I was alluding to when I was talking – answering Barbara’s question. But it’s the fact that you can liberate a city, but unless you come in with leadership, local governance, and deal with some of the – obviously, the real issues of reestablishing infrastructure, electricity, that kind of thing, basic services, but also dealing with some of the political tensions and dynamics and addressing them with reforms, I think you’re not – then you’re not going to win the overall battle.

Part of what we need to do, and this is certainly going to be an issue that’s tackled when we have the ministerial here in a few weeks, or in a couple of weeks – the de-ISIS ministerial here – is going to be how do we look at not just defeating ISIS on the battlefield but making sure that they’re eliminated from the social fabric, that they don’t somehow – we don’t simply defeat them tactically and not defeat them online, in other spaces so that they can no longer recruit, there’s no longer people who would be swayed by their cause. And part of that is going to be how do you enact the kind of political reforms. And Iraq is already taking steps to do so. The government, we believe, has taken steps to do so but there’s more work to be done, and how do you implement the kind of political reforms that will make Iraq stable, that will make it more prosperous, and a better place for the people.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Same topic.

QUESTION: Iraq. Iraq.

MR TONER: Yeah, let’s stay there. Please.

QUESTION: Our correspondent in Iraq interviewed people who got out of Mosul, who escaped, and along with ISIL’s atrocities, they described situations where ISIL would go into people’s homes, not allow them to leave, and then airstrikes would hit the houses and – with the civilians still inside. And in November, in response to my question, you said, “We take every effort and take every precaution to avoid civilian casualties, to the point where we will choose sometimes not to take strikes against known enemy targets because they put civilians at risk.” Was it different in Mosul? Have the rules of engagement changed in any way?

QUESTION: I wouldn’t say that. With respect to – we’ve always said that and that’s – it’s absolutely clear, is that when we’re sharing information or – with the Iraqi military or whether we’re carrying out airstrikes, we do so in an effort or we try to be as precise as possible. We try to have the best intelligence and information available that we can to avoid any civilian casualties. And again, we stand – I stand by those comments that we will sometimes, if we have information that indicates that there’s civilians nearby or civilians in a place, then we will refrain from acting. Let me finish.

With respect to these specific charges, I think that’s all something that – these are the kind of allegations, if credible, that would need to be investigated, looked into, and if something – if changes need to be made in terms of targeting, then that’s something that Department of Defense would look at.

QUESTION: It appears that the airstrikes were hitting places were civilian casualties were likely.

MR TONER: I just – I’m not aware. Sure, I’m --

QUESTION: Are you saying that the rules of engagement have not changed in any way? Is the --

MR TONER: They have not changed.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: India?

QUESTION: Just one more on Iraq.

MR TONER: Let’s stay – are we done with Iraq?

QUESTION: I have a question on Iraq.

MR TONER: Okay, one more Iraq, and then I’ll go to China.

QUESTION: So just on McGurk’s visit to Erbil, local media have reported that they discussed the mounting tensions between the PKK-affiliated forces and the KRG-affiliated forces in Sinjar, and there we’ve seen some skirmishes between those forces. They’re all anti-ISIS forces. Your view, what is – does this complicate your mission against the Islamic State, that rival Kurdish forces fight against each other?

MR TONER: So there have been discussions between the Government of Iraq and the KRG with respect to western Nineveh, which is the area west of Sinjar – area around Sinjar to the west. And those discussions have focused generally on how to build stability in that particular region along the border with Syria that’s been liberated from ISIS. We’ve talked a lot about some of the complex battlespaces. We understand some of the tensions on the ground with respect to, for example, the PKK, that we believe has no place on the battlefield and we consider to be a foreign terrorist organization.

So there’s these ongoing efforts to address some of these tensions, better coordinate in the aftermath of when we liberate these areas or when the Iraqi Government and Iraqi Security Forces liberate these areas. I can say we’re very much aware of it and we’re in discussions on how to best deal with that.

QUESTION: Has the U.S. military or the United States Department of State done anything to calm those tensions down between the two forces --

MR TONER: Well, I --

QUESTION: -- or to address the problem?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, I think we’re always looking about – we’re always talking to – and of course, Brett McGurk was just obviously in the region in the last couple of days, but we’re always in discussions with Turkey, with Iraq, and with all the players in Iraq, including Kurdish forces, about how to de-escalate tensions between these – some of these different groups with the recognition that, again, we don’t want this to escalate in any way, need to keep the focus on what everyone’s main goal should be, which is defeating ISIS.

You had China --

QUESTION: Can we stay in the region, Mark, in Syria?

MR TONER: Sure. We’ll get to you.

QUESTION: The opposition – the Syrian opposition has said that they will not attend Astana meeting tomorrow since the ceasefire was not implemented. Do you have any comment on that?

MR TONER: Well, we respect that decision. That’s their decision to make not to attend the talks. I think we’d still call on the regime and Russia and Iran to make a good-faith effort to look at ways to de-escalate the violence and, frankly, to adhere to numerous ceasefire agreements that have been put into place over the past few months. I mean, I think there was at least some hope that these talks in Astana, when they started, would potentially lead to a durable ceasefire or cessation of hostilities on the ground in Syria, one that could allow us to really concretely get the Geneva talks up and running, and that remains an obstacle. It’s the same obstacle that we faced over the past couple of years is how do we get a durable ceasefire in place. That’s the kind of the next – the key to getting to the next level in terms of a political process and a peaceful transition. We’d like to see that – we’d like to see some effort in that regard, some constructive effort in that regard come out of Astana.

QUESTION: And will this absence affect the next round of Geneva talks, do you think?

MR TONER: No, I think Geneva talks are still scheduled – I think March 24th [1] is the next date for them – sorry, I’m looking through here, I have the dates written in here somewhere – I think they’re still scheduled to begin. They’ve obviously already taken place without a durable ceasefire in place, the last round, of course. We just think it’s more – to have a durable, nationwide ceasefire in place would create the kind of atmosphere, the kind of environment where we believe this political process can move forward.

QUESTION: And my last one.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Any State Department official will attend Astana?

MR TONER: Yeah. As with previous talks, I think our U.S. Ambassador to Kazakhstan George Krol will be in attendance.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Can we switch to China?

MR TONER: Let’s finish. You had – Michele, you wanted to move to China.

QUESTION: China – yeah, is that okay?

MR TONER: We’re not off of --

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Is that okay? Should I --

QUESTION: Yes, yes.

MR TONER: Yeah, let’s --

QUESTION: Okay, great. So now that there’s word that – or confirmation, I should say, that the U.S. intends to station attack drones in South Korea in addition to THAAD, what effect do you think that will have on the Secretary’s talks while he’s in China? And I mean, what kind of a reaction are you expecting from the Chinese on this?

MR TONER: Well, look, with respect to the Secretary’s trip – I mean, obviously, he’s going to have an opportunity at every stop to talk about next steps or what we do now, with respect to North Korea. I mean, it’s obviously the looming challenge over our relations and, frankly, the security of the Korean Peninsula, but also increasingly the security of our allies in the region and the security of the United States, given the scale of their testing and the – frankly, the pace of their testing as well.

You mentioned drones specifically. I know that the U.S. Army has directed United States forces create and prepare for a permanent station – stationing, rather, of a Gray Eagle unmanned aerial system company at Kunsan Air Base in South Korea. This is, I think, an ongoing effort to defend the Republic of Korea and U.S. interests in order to maintain regional security, stability, and economic prosperity for the region. In addition to THAAD, these are largely – or not largely, these are defensive measures that are a response to what we – and by “we” I mean South Korea, the United States and, certainly, Japan – view as a real and credible threat to our security.

Now, I understand and, obviously, the Secretary understands that China feels differently certainly with respect to THAAD. I think part of, obviously, the discussions he’s going to have when he’s in Beijing are hopefully going to be geared towards easing some of those concerns, but also in making very clear that we’re taking these actions in an effort to deal with an increasingly – an increasing threat – I’ll put it that way – and that we have to do more, we have to look at new ideas, new ways of dealing with North Korea. So we understand there’s – everybody agrees on the challenge, which is: How do you stop North Korea’s bad behavior? There’s many ways to look at the problem, many ways to address it. I think part of this trip will be about trying to hone in on some next steps.

QUESTION: Okay, so – I mean, the U.S. has wanted China to do more --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- in terms of pressure for a long time. So given the pace that you mentioned now, are you fully expecting just from this trip to see more commitment from China? And do you expect that the addition of this – like, I guess I’m getting at how big of a deal do you see THAAD in combination with the drone stationing and how China will react to that? Are you expecting to get more from China or do you think that the timing now with what the U.S. is doing in South Korea is going to slow that down despite North Korea’s pace?

MR TONER: Well, I think it’s a fair question. Again, these are very clearly defensive measures that we’re taking in response to an increasingly worrying, concerning threat from North Korea. China understands that threat. They’re not oblivious to what’s happening in North Korea with, again, the pace of the testing that’s been going on over the past six months. As I said, we differ in our view points on the way forward, but in no way are we going to back away from our, frankly, our treaty obligations to our ally, South Korea, in doing the utmost that we can do for not only the defense of our forces, but for the defense of the Korean people.

But what I think, more broadly speaking, we really do need to talk with and these talks have already – these discussions have already been going on with Secretary Tillerson and his counterpart about other ways, whether it’s – well, certainly it’s in the implementation of the existing sanctions regime, but what are next steps we can take to really put pressure on the regime to make them feel and pay a price for their behavior.

So I think all of these things are on the table; none of them are easy. If it were, then we’d have solved it long ago. But again, it’s trying to really convince a regime and a leader who doesn’t seem to care much about international pressure or international law or international norms. He’s acted in defiance of multiple UN Security Council resolutions, so how do we sway him and his regime back onto the right track and to pursue talks, credible talks, about the future of their nuclear program?

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Mark, what about – same issue.

QUESTION: One more on --

MR TONER: Sorry, you want to stay on Korea?

QUESTION: China?

QUESTION: It’s actually on China.

QUESTION: A follow-up.

MR TONER: Okay, China, China.

QUESTION: We’ll stay – we’ll – go ahead, okay.

MR TONER: You don’t have to ask at the same time.

QUESTION: Yeah, in unison. So at the White House earlier today --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- Sean Spicer said – wouldn’t confirm a visit to Mar-a-Lago, but said it’s in the works, and said – and there – and the expectation is that Tillerson will lay the groundwork for a visit soon on his trip. I guess, do you have anything to say about those preparations? And then, would Secretary Tillerson join Trump in a bilateral meeting after his China consultations? Because I don’t think he’s been in a meeting with Trump and a foreign leader yet.

MR TONER: I don’t want to speak to meetings or visits that have yet to be formally announced, so – but of course, Sean was correct in his characterization that part of this trip will be – his trip to Beijing will be to, when there is this visit, is not only staging the visit and how it works and the logistics of it, but I think almost more importantly, what’s the agenda? What’s our – what are our core concerns with China, but also how can we get this relationship off on a good footing, a solid footing, a cooperative footing? Where are the areas that we can cooperate more closely with China with respect to, obviously, North Korea, but also economically and in other ways? China is a global player, and as much as we can cooperate and work with them on issues where we find common ground, it’s to the betterment of the region; but also making clear where we do have concerns about China, whether it’s a level playing field for business, American business or any business, but also with respect to human rights as well.

So, setting a positive agenda. Please, Carol.

QUESTION: About human rights in China, do you know if the Secretary has any expectation in Beijing, if he plans to discuss the situation involving the imprisonment and harassment of journalists there, and if he plans to discuss at all the role that a free and independent press can play in the country that the international community expects?

MR TONER: Sure. So I would say that these are all, obviously, concerns of his and concerns of the State Department, concerns of the U.S. Government. I’m just always wary of predicting exactly what will be on the agenda of any meeting, but I can guarantee that it is a concern, and I said as much just now in responding to Felicia that we recognize there are challenges there. Human rights is one of those challenges and --

QUESTION: Mark?

QUESTION: And the press?

MR TONER: -- freedom of press – and freedom of press is an essential part of that.

QUESTION: Mark, is it --

QUESTION: And if --

MR TONER: It’s okay.

QUESTION: And if he flies there without a regular member of the State Department press corps traveling with him, do you feel that this might send a message that might be contrary to that?

MR TONER: Well, that’s not what we would intend to – a message we would intend to send. Look, I think the fact that, I think, some 20 members of the press are going to be meeting us, or even more, at various stops along the way, and we’re going to accommodate those individuals and crews and make sure they have access, and I also believe the Secretary is going to give a press availability when he’s in Tokyo, sends the right message, which is that we respect and want to work transparently with the media.

QUESTION: Same issue, follow-up.

MR TONER: Do you want to stay on China? Finish that out, and then we’ll get back – yeah. China too?

QUESTION: On North Korea.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Got it. Yes, please.

QUESTION: North Korea.

MR TONER: Oh, North Korea, sorry.

QUESTION: Yes.

MR TONER: You pulled me away from China. Clever.

QUESTION: China and North Korea, whatever, they're all same issues.

MR TONER: I’ll get to you. I know, I know, they’re all --

QUESTION: There is reporting that North Korea will be conducting next – new six – the nuclear test soon. Do you have any information on that?

MR TONER: I don’t, and I wouldn’t be able to share that with you. I think, though – I mean, I wouldn’t get into intelligence, obviously, and our assessment – intelligence assessments, but I think you could be, frankly, a casual follower of the region and look at North Korea’s track record over the past six months and anticipate that they’re going to continue along that roadmap until either they can be convinced otherwise or otherwise persuaded to engage in a denuclearization.

QUESTION: But very soon – they say sooner or later they’re going to do another test, so your intelligence should have (inaudible) --

MR TONER: Well, exactly. I mean, look, we want them to come to the table in a serious effort to address concerns about their nuclear program. And until they do that --

QUESTION: Yeah. Another one. Will the United States reassign the North Korea as a terrorist country?

MR TONER: What’s that? I’m sorry, I apologize.

QUESTION: North Korea as a terrorist country, U.S. will put in the North Korea --

MR TONER: Again, that’s a designation – I don’t want to get into this because I’ve taken flak for this when I’ve talked about this process – that’s a very deliberate process to designate a state sponsor of terror, and I’d have to have lawyers actually walk through how that’s designated, but it’s a very specific evaluation or criteria that goes into that kind of designation. But I can say – without that determination, I can say that North Korea is a destabilizing player in the region and increasingly so.

Please, Luke.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: Does the Secretary want China to do more to counter the North Korean threat?

MR TONER: Yes. I mean, we’re always cognizant of China’s influence over North Korea and we’re always encouraging it to play a more forceful role in that regard, whether it’s through a more thorough implementation of the sanctions regime that exists or through other ways. And so that’s a leverage that China brings to the table and that’s certainly something we want to see them take more advantage of.

QUESTION: Does – given China’s objections to THAAD being deployed to South Korea and now these armed drones, and with Japan announcing they’re going to sail a large warship in the South China Sea, how does Secretary Tillerson expect to get anything done with regard to North Korea on this trip?

MR TONER: Well, I think, again – I mean, there’s a few issues to unpack in that. One is – has to do with freedom of navigation. That’s a rule we hold sacrosanct, as do many countries around the world. But I think what the Chinese certainly can take away from that is that there’s real concern with respect to North Korea and its behavior. And this isn’t – we need to look at fresh ways of how to deal with this challenge because thus far, we’ve been unable to persuade them either through UN action, through sanctions, whatever. So I think we need to look at new possibilities. But any part of dealing with that threat is to take prudent action to the defense of our allies and that’s what’s behind THAAD, that’s what’s behind these drones.

Please.

QUESTION: And is it a challenging time right now to be a diplomat with the State Department’s budget getting cut, yet the military is planning a large buildup?

MR TONER: It’s always a challenging time to be a diplomat. (Laughter.) I mean, it is, but – no, Lucas, I mean, I think – first of all, I don’t want to get into too many specifics about the budget because we’re still in early days, but – I talked a little bit about this last week. I think there’s an opportunity here at the beginning of a new administration to reassess how we’re spending our taxpayer dollars here and whether they’re focused on the right priorities, how we can do a better job. I think any organization, any bureaucracy can probably look at ways to trim some fat or to reorganize, to operate more effectively. And that’s something that Secretary Tillerson’s very much involved in doing, but at the same time recognizing that he needs to make sure, and it’s partly his job to ensure, that this building gets the money – and our posts, more importantly, overseas get the money and resources they need.

QUESTION: Mark --

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: One or two more questions, guys. Yes, I’m sorry, please. Go ahead.

QUESTION: Can you just tell us a little bit about how the Secretary is preparing for this visit? Obviously, he’s been to the region before --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- in his previous jobs, but can you talk about how he’s preparing for this visit? And then also, is anyone from the White House traveling with him to any of the countries?

MR TONER: No, there will be no one from the White House with him on this trip. He will obviously be traveling with acting Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Susan Thornton. He will – I mean, he obviously – I mentioned at the top of the briefing he did meet with ASEAN leaders on Friday, again, to get their ideas, to hear from them what their thoughts – what he should be looking for and asking about in his trip. And he’s also already had meetings in Bonn and also here in Washington, D.C. with senior Chinese leadership as well as foreign ministers from Korea – Republic of South – of Korea and as well as Japanese foreign minister. So I think he’s already got a pretty good basis and he’s heard a lot of their viewpoints already, but I think, as I said, given concern over North Korea’s actions, I think he really wants to come – rather – really wants to try to drill down on that challenge for this trip. But let’s not also ignore the other 800-pound gorilla in the room here, which is our trade relations with the region. It’s hugely important. I mean, these are valuable trading partners, and that’s another thing that’s going to be discussed is how do we look at trade issues, how do we foster more productive bilateral trade relations with these countries, and that includes, obviously, China.

QUESTION: Mark (inaudible) way in the back?

QUESTION: Mark --

MR TONER: Yeah, Michelle. And then two more questions, guys. I’m sorry, I have to run. I apologize.

QUESTION: The United Nations has confirmed that it’s looking for two officials with the panel of experts, including American Michael Sharp. Wondering what you can tell me about the circumstances about that disappearance. Is this a kidnapping? And the other question is whether – there is this U.S. envoy on hostages – or hostage situations. Does that position still exist, and does this case rise to that?

MR TONER: Well, we are aware – you’re talking about, I think, in the Democratic Republic of Congo?

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: We’re aware of reports of a U.S. citizen who was reported missing in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I will not be very forthcoming because we’re still trying to get more specifics about the case; so I won’t be mentioning the individual’s name. I’m somewhat restrained in what I can talk about except to say that we obviously take the security and welfare of American citizens abroad very seriously. We’re watching this case very closely. We’re working with local authorities to try to find out more information. We’re also in touch with the UN as well.

With respect to your second question, it was about the hostage --

QUESTION: Right. You have – you had a whole office here working on those issues. Does it still exist?

MR TONER: That office – to my understanding, that office is still up and running and still involved in this – is involved in any situation where there’s a U.S. citizen or an American citizen who’s been kidnapped or held hostage overseas. Again, with respect to this particular incident, I don’t want to – we’re aware of reports that he’s missing, this individual’s missing. I don’t want to lean too far forward until we’ve really gotten a better factual basis to talk about it.

QUESTION: Mark, India –

QUESTION: Has Obama --

MR TONER: One more question, guys. I’m sorry to cut this off.

QUESTION: Has Obama’s appointee left the --

MR TONER: Felicia and then John, and then last one.

QUESTION: In reference to Michelle’s question, the Obama appointee who was the envoy, has he left?

MR TONER: I’ll have to take the question. I don’t know. I’ll have to find out.

QUESTION: I think he has left.

MR TONER: I think he has, too, but I don’t want to speak incorrectly.

Go ahead, John.

QUESTION: Mohammed bin Salman is --

MR TONER: I’ll have to take Felicia’s question.

QUESTION: Mohammed bin Salman’s meeting with some White House officials. Is --

MR TONER: I missed the first part of your question.

QUESTION: MBS, Mohammed bin Salman is meeting with White House officials.

MR TONER: Oh, yeah, of course.

QUESTION: Is he meeting with anybody from the State Department?

MR TONER: I’m not sure. I’ll take the question as well.

QUESTION: On the visit of – on the meeting with the Saudi foreign minister --

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: -- with Secretary Tillerson, it’s been widely reported in the region that Secretary Tillerson was instrumental in facilitating the visit of Adel al-Jubeir to Iraq a couple weeks ago. Could you comment on that? What – has he been instrumental in that regard? Has he been – he convinced the Iraqis to receive and the Saudis to go?

MR TONER: Well, you’re right, that was an important and constructive visit. I don’t really want to speak to any possible role that he may have played or we may have played in establishing that visit except to say that we’re close partners with Saudi Arabia, and obviously, close partners with the Government of Iraq, and whatever the Secretary – what we can do as a Department of State to foster stronger regional cooperation, we’re going to do so.

MR TONER: Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: One on Saudi Arabia.

MR TONER: That’s it.

Correction: The talks are March 23, 2017.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:54 p.m.)

DPB # 13

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.