U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 7
March 9, 2017
Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 9, 2017
Acting Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 9, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT/COUNTER-ISIS COALITION MEETING
SYRIA
MEXICO
AFGHANISTAN
DEPARTMENT/COUNTER-ISIS COALITION MEETING
DEPARTMENT
NORTH KOREA
SOUTH KOREA
SYRIA/REGION
DEPARTMENT/COUNTER-ISIS COALITION MEETING
INDIA
SOUTH KOREA
TRANSCRIPT:
Today's briefing was held off-camera, so no video is available.
2:02 p.m. EST
MR TONER: Thank you so much. And welcome, everybody, to this – today’s briefing with the State Department, the first one in a long time by telephone, but hopefully it’ll be useful. And it’s a new format, so we look forward to it.
Just a couple things at the top, and then I’ll take your questions. Secretary Tillerson will host foreign ministers and senior leaders of the global coalition dedicated to the complete defeat of ISIS and will express his full support of the coalition’s mission. This meeting will be held on March 22nd, here in Washington, D.C. Secretary Tillerson has been crystal clear that defeating ISIS is the State Department’s top priority in the Middle East. He said it in his confirmation hearing, and he said it repeatedly to foreign counterparts.
ISIS has unleashed violence and havoc in the region by committing a mass homicide and terrorizing people in Iraq and Syria, unleashing a wave of refugees and – as well as a humanitarian crisis. Defeating ISIS is the start of a process to create, as well, stability in Syria.
This will be the first meeting of the entire coalition – all 68 members – since 2014. It’ll be the largest gathering of the coalition since its inaugural meeting. And while significant ground has been gained on the battlefield, there are new fronts, and that includes online, where we can improve our tactics, our strategy, and our coordination. Defeating ISIS requires the support of all members of the coalition, and the Secretary looks forward to stressing the importance of their cooperation as well as their contributions to the effort to eradicate ISIS from the region.
The meeting will cover other ground, including how to thwart foreign terrorist fighters, counter terrorist financing, stabilization of liberated areas, and the ongoing humanitarian crisis. Secretary Tillerson thanks all of our partners for their contributions to date and recognizes this is a key moment in establishing the roadmap to defeat this dangerous threat in the Middle East once and for all.
With that, I’ll turn it over to your questions. We’re going to just – given this is a new format, what I’ve worked out is that we’ll allow each questioner a follow-up question, and then we’ll move to the next questioner.
Thank you. Go ahead.
OPERATOR: Thank you. The first question comes from David Clark with AFP. Please, go ahead. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Thanks for doing this. So the – this meeting of the coalition, what level will the people be represented at? Will it be just diplomats, or will general officers be there as well? And will Russia be there in any capacity? I know it’s not a member of the coalition per se, but obviously, they’ve got forces on the ground de-conflicting with the coalition. And do they have an observer role or a guest role in this?
MR TONER: Thanks, David. So this is at the ministerial level, so it will be with foreign ministers. Now, that said, on March 23rd the coalition’s working group co-leads will meet as well to coordinate across all lines of effort. That includes military, counter-finance, counter-messaging, counter-foreign-fighters, as well as stabilization – all aspects of the campaign. I can imagine that will involve all aspects – certainly both military and government as well.
With respect to your question about Russia, no, Russia will not be part of these meetings. They’re not part of the global coalition.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: And then just my follow-up, then.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: You say that it’s the administration’s top priority in the Middle East, and you say that defeating ISIS is a prelude to establishing stability in Syria. You no longer then regard the role of Bashar al-Assad’s regime as being the prime driver of instability in Syria?
MR TONER: I wouldn’t say that, David. But we obviously – this is – and we talked about this before. This is a – there’s two tracks in Syria, two conflicts that we need to resolve. Obviously, first and foremost is the fight to destroy ISIS, and that’s where we are focusing our efforts during this ministerial meeting, but certainly going forward in how we look at the situation on the ground. But that certainly doesn’t change our focus on trying to resolve the civil war that’s ongoing in Syria. We just are – there’s essentially two difficult challenges to resolve within Syria. One is the removal of ISIS, and certainly the other one is a peaceful political resolution to the civil war. And let me be clear as well that the primary driver of that civil war is the regime of Bashar al-Assad.
Next question.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Tracy Wilkinson with Los Angeles Times, please, go ahead. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi. Yes, thank you. Hi, Mark. I see that the foreign minister of Mexico is in town, Luis Videgaray, meeting with – according to the Mexicans – Kushner, Gary Cohn, and McMaster. Is there no State Department meeting with him? And if not, why not?
MR TONER: Tracy, good question. We’ll take that and get back to you. I was unaware that he was – the foreign minister was in town. And I’m not sure – I can’t speak to whether there’s going to be any meetings at the State Department at any level. I’ll take the question.
QUESTION: Okay. Okay, thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah. Please, next question.
OPERATOR: Next we’ll go to Conor Finnegan with ABC News. Please, go ahead.
MR TONER: Thanks, Mark. I was wondering about U.S. policy in Afghanistan. Given the attack yesterday that ISIS claimed credit for, is the U.S. reevaluating its position in Afghanistan? What, in particular, would be involved in that review? Are we considering sending more troops or increasing foreign assistance? And would that be the case despite the possible budget cuts in something like foreign assistance and despite President Trump’s statements, both as a candidate and as a private citizen, that he thought the U.S. was wasting money in Afghanistan?
MR TONER: Thanks for the question. So first of all, our mission currently in Afghanistan is, along with our NATO partners, how we provide training, advice, assistance to the Afghan Security Forces. Our assistance as well supports a broad range of Afghan civilian and security institutions, essentially with the goal of how we develop – or are trying to develop, rather – the capacity to prevent these kind of ongoing attacks and how we can build up the Afghan forces’ capabilities to respond effectively to them when necessary, and bring the perpetrators to justice, of course.
With respect to how we look at that policy going forward, I mean, I think we’re looking – as I said, at the outset of a new administration, we’re looking at a broad review of current policies. But let me just stress that our commitment to Afghanistan remains rock solid. I know the Secretary has spoken to both President Ghani and as well as CEO Abdullah in recent weeks – in days, in fact. He emphasized in those conversations his continued support for the National Unity Government of Afghanistan. And of course, we continue to work with our Afghan partners across a broad spectrum of issues that include security force development, counterterrorism cooperation, as well as economic development.
Any other --
QUESTION: Can I ask a follow-up on that, Mark?
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. see the threat from ISIS as growing in Afghanistan? Is there increased concern given yesterday’s attack and some previous attacks from ISIS Khorasan?
MR TONER: Look, I think with respect to ISIS we’ve always been clear that this is an organization that, as we attempt to eradicate it from its home base in – Iraq, rather, and in Syria, it’s trying to set up new affiliates, if you will, in other places around the globe and in some of those ungoverned spaces, which, again, supports why it’s so important for us to continue our efforts to stabilize Afghanistan, to work with the Afghan Government and Afghan Security Forces to increase their capabilities to provide that kind of security.
But I would say certainly we’re concerned about anywhere that ISIS might look to establish a foothold. We’ve seen it also in places like Libya. But we’ve also been successful in, where we do have opportunities to strike ISIS leadership in those places, we take advantage of them. It’s just something we’re obviously aware of and we’re coordinating with our partners on the ground to go after ISIS wherever it seeks to establish itself.
Next question, please.
OPERATOR: Next we’ll go to Guy Taylor at The Washington Times. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, Mark, how are you? I wanted to follow up on the ministerial meeting of the counter-ISIS coalition and see if we can kind of pull you back into that a little bit. I’m just reading through the release that State put out as the call started. Is there really anything new that the Trump administration hopes will come of this meeting? What is the administration actually hoping to achieve by doing this now or get out of hosting it, strategically?
MR TONER: Sure, fair question. So I think – look, I mean, there have been meetings of this coalition both at the small group level but as well as the entire coalition periodically throughout its existence. I think the full coalition met soon after it was founded in December 2014. It’s now at – was down at 68 – 60 partners, rather. Now it’s grown to, I think, 68 members. And this is the first full coalition meeting since it’s now at 68 members. But again, at the small group level it has also met periodically as well.
I think what sets this meeting apart – obviously, it’s the first meeting of the new administration. I think it’s an opportunity for Secretary Tillerson to lay out the challenges that are facing the coalition moving forward. I think we all recognize that we have seen progress in defeating ISIS on the ground, certainly on the battlefield. They’ve lost territory. How do we leverage that success? How do we build on that success? How do we augment our capabilities? And also, as I said, what are the next challenges? I mentioned – and cyberspace as one area that they’re going to look at – how we augment our work. But I think, again, there’s also dealing with finances, dealing with the foreign fighters. I think he wants to get a sense, working with partners on all of those issues, what are the best ways forward.
I also think that this also is an opportunity for our coalition colleagues, our coalition partners to get together and share their view, and also it’s a chance for us all to recommit ourselves to ISIS’s ultimate defeat, and also how we burden-share, how we share our capability – or how we share the costs certainly going forward, and better share our capabilities on the ground.
Next – do you have another one?
QUESTION: Mark, quick – actually, quick follow-up.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: So the administration more than a month ago ordered all agencies to do a comprehensive review of Washington’s ISIS, counter-ISIS strategy, that I believe has been delivered to the White House from Secretary of Defense Mattis’s office. Will that review factor into this coalition meeting? Is it something that there’s going to be some new strategy that the administration is hoping to roll out for all of these partners at this meeting?
MR TONER: So you’re right. On January 28th, obviously, the President, as you mentioned, directed Secretary of Defense Mattis to work with interagency partners to develop that preliminary plan, and the State Department was involved in that process and the drafting of the plan, and it was delivered to the White House on February 27th for consideration and for broader discussion. Now, the details of that plan are still classified. I can’t really provide further information on the contents of that plan, but I think that broadly speaking, we’re going to look at how we approach this in new ways, how we augment, I think, existing capabilities and processes on the ground, as I said, to really take advantage of what’s been progress in – certainly on the battlefield with ISIS. But I just can’t really speak to what those new initiatives could look like at this point in time. Sorry. Thanks.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And next, we’ll go to Kylie Atwood with CBS News. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you so much. Hi, Mark. We just saw in the White House briefing that Sean said that he hadn’t heard that the Secretary was traveling without press to Asia. Can you talk a little bit about the discussions between the State Department and the White House regarding this trip? And could you also give us a reason? I know that you said you’d get back to us on why the Secretary is taking a smaller plane, but could you get back to us on that, please?
MR TONER: Sure. Thanks for the question, Kylie. Look, I mean, we coordinate with the White House on – obviously, on the substance and the logistics involving the Secretary’s travel because we need to be knitted up at an interagency level on the policies going forward, and that’s certainly underway with respect to this trip. We also work closely with our NSC and White House colleagues on press issues as well, although that’s not necessarily sharing of the logistics. So it’s not surprising that he might not have been aware of the press posture for this upcoming trip.
That said, with respect to the trip to Asia, we’re still working out the logistics, so I really can’t say specifically or speak definitively, I guess, as to whether we will be able to accommodate any press on the Secretary’s plane. I think we’re all aware that it is a smaller plane for this particular trip. There will, as you know, going to – there will be some U.S. media who will be traveling to the destinations, each destination, and of course, we will do our utmost to support them at those destinations and provide whatever access we can.
And I think going forward, the State Department is doing everything it can to – and will do everything it can to accommodate a contingent of traveling media on board the Secretary’s plane.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yep. Next question, please.
OPERATOR: Next we’ll go to Carol Morello with Washington Post. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Greenpeace said today it was starting a petition drive to ask the Office of Government Ethics to urge Secretary Tillerson to recuse himself from any decisions regarding the Keystone pipeline. Is that something he would consider, or does he rule it out once he’s completed the process of divesting himself from his ExxonMobil stock?
MR TONER: Hi, Carol. With respect to the Keystone pipeline, I wouldn’t want to speak to the contents of the letter until we’ve had a chance to see it, so I’m going to take a pass on that. We will get a response to you once we’ve had a chance to read the letter and evaluate it.
With respect to his divestiture of his stock and involvement in Exxon, I think I spoke to this a little bit the other day. But the Secretary made very clear that he was going to comply with federal ethics rules, and he is in the process of meeting the terms of that agreement. I don’t have anything to add to that.
Next question.
QUESTION: Can --
MR TONER: Oh, go ahead. I’m sorry, Carol.
QUESTION: I was just going to say can you tell us how far along he is in the process of divesting himself? Halfway there, three quarters of the way?
MR TONER: I don’t – I just can’t at this point. And that’s not – I just – I’m unaware. Like I said, this is a process that he’s working with the Office of Government Ethics in doing, and we don’t really have a role in that, so I can’t give you a progress report.
QUESTION: Okay, thanks.
MR TONER: Thanks.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Next we’ll go to Nick Wadhams with Bloomberg News. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hey, Mark. I just wanted to circle back on the Asia trip and North Korea. The first is: Do you have an idea of who’s going to be traveling with him given that Danny Russel has now left the building? Will it be the acting assistant? And then I have a follow-up to that question.
MR TONER: Sure. With respect to who will be traveling with him, I know that Susan Thornton is the acting assistant secretary since Danny Russel has departed that position, so I know she’ll be on board. You had a follow-up question?
QUESTION: Yeah. Just to circle back to something you said about North Korea yesterday, which was that, essentially, what everybody had been doing to get – achieve a denuclearized North Korea had not worked so far, and the Secretary would be looking at new approaches. You also mentioned yesterday that the U.S. was still looking for a signal from the North that it’s capable and ready for these kind of negotiations.
So I’m wondering, I mean, if that seems to be the primary stumbling block for past negotiations, a sense that (inaudible) in its intent, so would the U.S. be willing to enter into negotiations with North Korea that did not have – I mean, didn’t require them to sort of promise to be on the road to denuclearization? Is that one idea that’s being discussed as part of these new approaches?
MR TONER: So thanks, Nick, for the question. So just revisiting that whole issue and, in fact, the double freeze idea that was put forward by the Chinese foreign minister a couple days ago – I think yesterday, in fact – I just want to revisit that quickly, and then I’ll get to your broader question. And there’s no equivalence between North Korea’s illegal missile and nuclear activities and what is our lawful, longstanding joint security exercises with our allies in the region. So that’s one of the reasons we’re somewhat dismissive of the proposal. The [inaudible] – the international community, rather, remains united in condemning North Korea’s continued destabilizing behavior, and I think North Korea’s actions demand that we look at new ways to resolve the problem. And that’s going to be part of his trip. I don’t necessarily have anything to preview, but you mentioned that we are looking for – and that is a fact. We don’t want to hold talks for talk’s sake; this is an ongoing issue with North Korea. We are ready to have serious discussions about denuclearization if they take steps to show themselves to be ready for such talks, and they know what steps they can take to send that signal. And I’ll leave it there.
But we’re not going to – we’re not going to talk about other issues. All of that can be something that we look at further on down the line, but first we need to address the international community’s – and this is not just the U.S., it’s not just South Korea, it’s not just Japan, it’s not just China, it’s the international community’s concerns about its illegal nuclear program.
Next question.
QUESTION: Could I ask, though, just that --
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: I mean, you say they know what steps they need to take. I mean, so what does that mean? And then, also, I mean, it seems like you’re saying two contradictory things, because on the one hand you’re saying we’re going to look for new approaches, but then we’re still going to require this thing which has been the chief stumbling block to the negotiations in the past.
MR TONER: No, all I’m saying, Nick, in terms of the, as I said, this double-freeze concept that was put out or laid out – or proposal, I guess – yesterday, it’s just that, as I said, there’s no equivalence. We’re not going to stop what are legal, transparent, longstanding military exercises that are defensive in nature in order to convince North Korea to stop what it’s doing, which is in contravention of international legal norms and numerous UN Security Council resolutions.
So I don’t want to draw any equivalence between the two, but that said, I also want to be clear that we would be willing to talk to North Korea – and I mean this in a broad sense – if it shows itself serious and willing to talk about its nuclear program. So – and as we – we’re not there yet; we’re certainly far from that given some of the actions it’s taken over the past six months or so. In fact, we’re moving farther away from that given the continuing tests it is carrying out. So we need to look at – in the absence of any kind of positive signals that we’re seeing from North Korea, we need to look at ways we continue to apply pressure on the regime in Pyongyang to convince them to end their nuclear program.
OPERATOR: Thank you. Next, we’ll go to Elise Labott with CNN. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can you hear me okay?
MR TONER: Sure can.
QUESTION: Oh. I just want to follow up on a couple of the North Korea (inaudible). Forgive me, I dropped on – I jumped on a little bit late. Did you address that – this UN report that North Korea tried to sell nuclear – nuclear weapons material in the past year? And I’m wondering, if you didn’t, whether – what the U.S. says about that and how much more of a concern is it that – about North Korea proliferation? Not just about the nuclear threat itself, but that it’s proliferating its nuclear technology. And then I have another question about the exercises.
MR TONER: Okay. I mean, we’re very concerned. We, frankly, welcomed the findings of – it was the UN Panel of Experts report on this. We call on all states to fully implement DPRK or North Korean sanctions in their entirety, and that includes UN Security Council Resolutions 2321 and 2270, which explicitly obligate UN member-states to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer of items to and from North Korea that can directly contribute to its proscribed programs. So we’re concerned, I think, about both aspects of this, as you rightly raised in your question, which is --
QUESTION: Well, doesn’t it – aren’t you – I mean, what does it signify in terms of the fact that they’re producing this enriched lithium, this lithium-6? Because some nuclear experts cite it as evidence that North Korea may be advancing on miniaturization, which is one of the main concerns that, in addition to having the nuclear technology, that it’s also advancing its miniaturization and ballistic missile capability.
MR TONER: Well, I don’t want to – I don’t want to get into intelligence matters. I think, broadly speaking, we are concerned at the scope and the pace of North Korea’s nuclear program. And as I said previously to Nick, we’re concerned that, if anything, the pace of that program seems to be picking up with continued testing of missiles and of nuclear technology or nuclear --
QUESTION: I just have one more on the exercises. I mean, I guess it’s a larger question, but I feel like we go through this every year with these kind of major exercises. You expect almost some kind of North Korean provocation because these are the largest annual exercises, and it’s like clockwork. As soon as you start them, there’s some kind of provocation, and then you get into this cycle with North Korea. And I’m just wondering, like – I understand your rightful ability to conduct these exercises, but don’t you think at some point there needs to be some kind of dialogue with North Korea in advance of these exercises or in congruence with these – in parallel with these exercises to at least attempt to allay their fears that it’s not a provocation on your part? Because it’s always followed by a provocation on their part.
MR TONER: Well, look, I mean, a couple points about that. You rightly say these are – this is a – somewhat an annual event in the sense that we carry out these exercises and there’s a reaction, which speaks to the fact that this is something that has been going on for the past roughly 40 years, so it shouldn’t be a surprise. And indeed, these are transparent. They’re carried out openly under the Combined Forces Campaign – or Command, rather. They’re planned months in advance. They involve participants from the United Nations sending states, members. They’re carried out in the spirit of the Korean – rather, ROK and U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty. And as I said, they’re done transparently.
So I understand your point, but the challenge here, frankly, is we should not be in a position where we are in some ways rewarding North Korea’s continued bad behavior, and that’s exactly what it is. When we’re carrying out military exercises with our ally, South Korea – the Republic of South Korea – it is, again, in response to the threat that they feel and we feel from North Korea’s continued provocative behavior in the region. So I think it’s important to put it in that framework. We always talk about the fact that, well, why don’t we just talk to them, but it’s – we can’t – we’re not in a position now where we can talk with them. We need to be in a position where we understand that they are willing to come to any kind of negotiation with a real intent to address the concerns about their nuclear program. And until that time, it’s frankly – it’s not something worth pursuing.
Again, it’s incumbent on us, on China, on Japan, and on South Korea and our other partners to look at ways that we can persuade them. Part of that includes pressure, of course. We need to look at, I think, a number of ways that we can put that pressure on the regime to answer the international community’s concerns.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And next we’ll go to Alicia Rose with NHK. Please, go ahead. And Ms. Rose, your line is open. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi. Sorry, I had my phone on mute. My question is about the hearing in South Korea. South Korea’s constitutional court is expected to deliver a decision later today on the impeachment trial of Korean President Park Geun-hye. How is the U.S. watching this trial? And also, how will the decision, either way, have an impact on U.S.-Korea relations? And then I have one follow-up.
MR TONER: Sure. Look, clearly, our relationship with South Korea is important. It’s a strong ally, regional partner. Secretary Tillerson is going to be there next week, looks forward to meeting his counterparts in Seoul.
I think with respect to the processes, the impeachment process ongoing in South Korea, we wouldn’t speak to that. We view that as a domestic issue and we certainly wouldn’t comment on it, except, as I said, to simply state that we’re very committed to our partnership with South Korea and look forward to strengthening it.
You had a follow-up?
QUESTION: Yes. Sorry. Just also, would there be any impact on the deployment of THAAD?
MR TONER: No, not at all. Sorry, I didn’t quite hear you. On the deployment of THAAD, you mentioned? That was your question?
QUESTION: Yes. Yeah.
MR TONER: Okay. Yeah. No, not at all.
Next question.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And next, we’ll go to Laurie Mylroie with Kurdistan 24. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Hi, Mark. Two questions. Ambassador Haley said yesterday that a political settlement in Syria required that it no longer be a safe haven for terrorists – quote, “We’ve got to make sure we get Iran and their proxies out.” Is reducing in a significant way Iran’s influence in Damascus a new U.S. objective in regards to Syria?
MR TONER: Not at all. We’ve consistently raised our concerns about the destabilizing nature of Iran’s activities in the region, but certainly in Syria, and we continue to hold the Iranian Government accountable for its actions, using the tools at our disposal.
On Syria, frankly, the support the Assad regime has received and continues to receive from Iran has enabled it to avoid pursuing what we all agree is the only outcome possible there to resolve the conflict, and that is a peaceful political outcome. It’s avoided – it’s allowed them to avoid seeking a negotiated end to the conflict, and that’s an issue.
We’ve imposed targeted sanctions on Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as well as its Ministry of Intelligence and Security for their support of the Assad regime. So as I said, we’re looking to counter those destabilizing actions, and we recognize – and we have recognized for some time – that Iran is playing a very destabilizing role in Syria. That should come as a surprise to no one.
You had a follow-up?
QUESTION: Yeah. It had to do – you mentioned this counter-ISIS meeting that you’re going to hold later this month. Are you considering or might you consider KRG representation at these meetings?
MR TONER: Well, again, this is something that the Government of Iraq would be attending, and we’ve talked about this before: We are very appreciative and aware of the sacrifice and effectiveness of Kurdish forces in the fight against ISIS, but we also recognize that they operate under the command and control of the Iraqi Government. That’s been very clear in all of our dealings with the Iraqi Government and our support for forces in Iraq that are fighting ISIS that we operate under the mandate of Iraqi Government command and control to all of our assistance, and that continues.
That said, we – and our Special Envoy Brett McGurk has frequent conversations with Kurdish leadership on the ground, and we consult with them closely. So we believe they’ll be represented here by the Government of Iraq.
QUESTION: Any chance you might encourage the Government of Iraq to bring along some Kurdish officials?
MR TONER: Well, look, that’s something for the Government of Iraq to work out with Kurdish officials themselves.
I have time, I think, for one more question.
OPERATOR: Thank you. And our final question will come from Lalit Jha with PTI. Please, go ahead. Your line is open.
QUESTION: Hi, thank you for doing this. I have two questions. One on Compassion International, calling up all your answers from yesterday. Have you raised this with India and what’s the response from them? Do you think in the coming days this will become a major irritant in the relations between the two countries? Then I have another question.
MR TONER: Sorry. You were, I think, talking about the closure of Compassion International. Is that what you’re referring to?
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: Yeah. Look, I mean, as I think I said yesterday, first of all, we have, as you know, a very strong bilateral relationship with India and with the Government of India. A relationship where we can talk about, obviously, all the issues we agree on as two strong democracies, but we can also, when needed, we can share our concerns. And I think this is an area where we have a concern, and we have shared those concerns with the Government of India and we remain concerned about the closure of Compassion International and its operations in India.
I think it speaks to our concerns more broadly about civil society and its ongoing vibrancy and health, and the fact that we will always advocate for freedom of expression and association around the world. As I said yesterday, over the past couple of years we’ve seen, frankly, a number of foreign-funded NGOs who have encountered significant challenges to continuing their operations, and it’s something we’re watching and it’s something we’re going to engage with the Indian Government on and try to find a way forward. And I think that, just to emphasize, we want all parties to be able to work cooperatively and certainly in a way that honors India’s laws and also, as I said, in a transparent process and find a way forward.
You had a follow-up, I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah, why are – they are – at the same time, there are several scores of U.S. organizations working uninterrupted in India. So why the case of one particular NGO is, of course, of concern to you? Why not – on the other hand you see several dozens, scores of American NGOs who are continuing to work, do the good job in India.
MR TONER: Sure. I think that this is the latest and I said that in my previous answers. We’ve seen a number of foreign-funded NGOs over the past couple of years encounter similar problems, so it remains a concern. It’s something we’ve raised. Compassion International is obviously just the most recent case. But we’re going to continue to talk to the Indian Government about it.
Just time for one more question. I know AP was --
QUESTION: Yeah, I have just one more quick question.
MR TONER: No, no, no, I’m sorry, Lalit. I’ve got to – Lalit, I apologize. I got to go to AP and then I have to run. I apologize.
AP, please.
OPERATOR: Certainly. Matthew Pennington with AP. Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Right. Thank you, Mark. You – following up on the concerns about Park Geun-hye’s impeachment, she’s been a very close partner of the United States on your North Korea policy. And the general consensus is that her successor is going to be more moderate and seek to engage the North Koreans rather than have a tough line. So are you concerned that South Korea’s policy toward North Korea will change to a sort of pro-engagement policy? And isn’t it possible that a new South Korean Government could withdraw permission for the deployment of THAAD?
MR TONER: With respect to our relationship with South Korea, as I said, it is undergoing an internal political process. We’re not going to speak to that. What we can speak to is our commitment to the relationship going forward and to how we strengthen that relationship with South Korea recognizing that, as we know in this own country, governments change, administrations change, new leadership comes into office, but what endures is the fundamental ties and bonds between two countries. And we believe those couldn’t be stronger with the Republic of South Korea.
With respect to THAAD, I’m not going to get ahead of the new government’s decisions and policy choices that it may make going forward. As I can say, Secretary Tillerson looks forward to visiting Seoul next week. He’s going to have a lot of these conversations on the ground and we think it’s going to be a productive time to engage with the Government of South Korea going forward.
Everyone, thanks so much for joining us on this call. I appreciate it. And we’ll have a transcript out later this afternoon. Again, thanks, everyone. Have a good afternoon. Bye.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:42 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.
March 8, 2017
Department Press Briefings : Department Press Briefing - March 8, 2017
Acting Spokesperson
Department Press Briefing
Washington, DC
March 8, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
AFGHANISTAN
GUATEMALA/COLOMBIA
PEPFAR
GUATEMALA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE/DEPARTMENT
INDIA
TURKEY
INDIA/TURKEY
INDIA
SYRIA/DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
TURKEY/RUSSIA/SYRIA
CHINA/DPRK/REGION
SYRIA
RUSSIA
TRANSCRIPT:
2:19 p.m. EST
MR TONER: Hey, guys. Happy Tuesday.
QUESTION: No, it’s not a happy Tuesday.
MR TONER: What he said. Happy Wednesday, guys. And I’m sorry I’m late. I realized it; I was waiting for one last bit of information that did not come, but I will do my best anyway. So, apologies at the top.
A couple things at the top, and then I’ll take your questions.
First of all, the United States strongly condemns today’s deadly attack on an Afghan National Army hospital in Kabul. Targeting a medical facility that provides care for the brave Afghans working to protect their fellow citizens has no possible justification. The Secretary extends the United States’s deepest heartfelt condolences to the family – families, friends, and colleagues of the victims of this senseless and cowardly act.
I would also note that the Secretary was focused on the safety and security of U.S. citizens who may have been affected, including our own personnel. I can confirm at this point that we have full chief-of-mission accountability following this attack.
QUESTION: That means they’re all safe too, though, right?
MR TONER: Correct.
I wanted to note as well that today, Assistant Secretary Brownfield is wrapping up a trip to two key Latin American partner nations – Guatemala and Colombia. In Guatemala, he focused on counternarcotics as well as corrections reform, a crucial piece of that country’s effort to reduce gang violence, taking part in the opening of a new prison, which will serve as a model for effective corrections moving forward. In Colombia, Assistant Secretary Brownfield also met with senior government officials to strategize on our joint counternarcotics approach in the face of worrying increases in Colombian coca cultivation and cocaine production.
Then, also I wanted to note that this week at the State Department, PEPFAR is holding the third of three management meetings in order to plan its fiscal year operational plans, Fiscal Year 2017. These are annual work plans that guide PEPFAR’s efforts to save and improve the lives of men, women, and children living with and affected by HIV/AIDS in high-burden countries. PEPFAR is driven by a commitment to excellence, achieving greater results and impact in a budget-neutral environment by using data, finding efficiencies, and leveraging partnerships. And along with an increased focus on transparency, PEPFAR’s approach makes it a cost-effective model for foreign assistance programs everywhere.
Matt?
QUESTION: I’m sorry, that thing about Bill Brownfield.
MR TONER: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: He attended the ribbon-cutting for a prison? Is that what you said?
MR TONER: That’s correct, yes. It was the opening of a new prison. I don’t know if it was an actual ribbon-cutting, but it was an opening of a new prison.
QUESTION: In Latin --
MR TONER: In Guatemala.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have something to do with this prison?
MR TONER: So we’ve been working with Guatemalan authorities on judicial reforms, on police reforms, on security reforms built around counternarcotics --
QUESTION: So there’s a --
MR TONER: -- but also to – sorry, just to – the other piece of this is that – is Guatemala’s plagued in particular by gang violence.
QUESTION: No, no.
MR TONER: I’m sorry.
QUESTION: I understand that, but I’m just – does the – did the U.S. help pay for it or --
MR TONER: I don’t know that we had – no, I don’t believe we had any – although I’ll double-check on that, I don’t believe we had any assistance to --
QUESTION: We’re not – he’s not going to get in the habit of going to prison openings around – okay.
MR TONER: No.
QUESTION: All right. Listen, I had just a couple of things to --
MR TONER: Although if it --
QUESTION: What?
MR TONER: -- if it highlights the good work that Guatemala is doing in – with respect to prison reform, of course we will.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Did you get a – were you able to get an answer to my question on the Palestinian aid review, that money, from yesterday?
MR TONER: Yes. At least I hope so. So as you noted yesterday, this was a last-minute action by the previous administration that remains under review and consideration. But your question specifically yesterday was, I think, the total amount? Or --
QUESTION: Well, it was both --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- whether the review is still --
MR TONER: It’s still ongoing.
QUESTION: Where is the money?
MR TONER: It’s still ongoing. So twenty – 220.3 million that was released was for West Bank programs such as water, infrastructure, education, renewable energy, civil society, municipal governance, and the rule of law, as well as Gaza recovery. And a smaller amount was to go directly to Israeli creditors of the Palestinian Authority as well as East Jerusalem hospitals. None of the funding was to go directly to the Palestinian Authority.
Whether this money has been released, it’s my understanding that the money – that the money has been released.
QUESTION: Okay. So the review was concluded and it determined that there was no --
MR TONER: I have here that it was – it remains under review, but I believe the money has been released so I don’t know --
QUESTION: Okay. Well, can you double-check on those?
MR TONER: I’ll double-check on it, Matt. Sure.
QUESTION: All right. And then somewhat related to this --
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: -- the Secretary met today with Defense Minister Lieberman of Israel.
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Can you offer us any details of that meeting? Specifically, the Israeli officials are saying that Minister Lieberman asked Secretary Tillerson to review the U.S. role in the Human Rights Commission, the UN Human Rights Commission, as well as its funding of UNRWA, the Palestinian aid agency.
MR TONER: I --
QUESTION: Is that – is that correct? And whether or not you can say whether this was raised, is the administration reviewing those two things?
MR TONER: So I can confirm that he did meet earlier today with Minister of Defense for Israel Lieberman here at the department. It was a private meeting. Obviously, I was not actually in the meeting room, so I can’t give you a specific readout of the discussion, nor would I other than that, obviously, Secretary Tillerson reaffirmed our close and unshakable bond to Israel and the commitment to Israel’s security.
With respect to your question about the Human Rights Council --
QUESTION: Yeah, I know that came up yesterday.
MR TONER: Yeah, yeah. It did, and our --
QUESTION: But other than – it’s in a different – it’s in a different context now and it’s also combined with UNRWA. So I’m wondering --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- is the administration reviewing its participation/funding for either of these organizations?
MR TONER: Well, with respect to the Human Rights Council, I think we talked about it yesterday. Our position has not changed.
QUESTION: I don’t recall you saying there was a review of your participation yesterday. That’s the question today. I know that you’re participating in it right now.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: It goes until March 24th or whatever it was that you said.
MR TONER: Right.
QUESTION: But is there an active review of whether you’re going to remain in it? That’s the question. And is there – and secondly --
MR TONER: Is with respect to UNRWA.
QUESTION: -- to UNRWA.
MR TONER: Well, let me start with UNRWA, and UNRWA is obviously something where we’ve had – we’ve been very vocal about our concerns given some of the allegations made about UNRWA – UNRWA’s, rather – some of UNRWA’s programs and how it’s spent or used some of its funding. I don’t know if I would categorize that as a review, but we certainly made those concerns clear to UNRWA’s leadership.
With respect to the Human Rights Council, I’m not aware of any review at this time.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: We’re engaged. We’re there at the council meeting today and we’re going to remain focused on our agenda.
QUESTION: All right.
MR TONER: Yeah.
MR TONER: And then the last one is: Did you have an answer or do you have a reaction to this new Israeli law that would ban people who support BDS from entering the country?
MR TONER: I mean, look, Matt – and we’ve talked about this law even before it was actually voted on and passed. I refer you to Israel to talk about its law.
QUESTION: Yeah, but do you – you don’t have any concerns? Or is it – I mean, when – I remember asking during the last administration what your position was on this. I think that you had a bit of a firmer answer, but --
MR TONER: We said – right.
QUESTION: -- at the same time pointing out that a sovereign country can decide who it wants to --
MR TONER: Yeah, I mean, I’m nodding in agreement with you.
QUESTION: -- let into its country.
MR TONER: Look, our strong position – opposition to boycotts and sanctions on the state of Israel remains firmly in place and is well-known, but as a – and as a general principle, sorry, we value freedom of expression, even in cases where we don’t agree with the political views espoused. That said, as you’ve noted, that’s Israel’s sovereign decision to make.
QUESTION: All right. I will let someone else ask the North Korea questions.
MR TONER: (Laughter.)
QUESTION: Can we stay on the same topic, please?
MR TONER: Okay, great.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: And let’s – for folks who are new, but I actually see a lot of familiar faces today, just to – yesterday was a bit of a scrum, and I apologize for that, but we generally try to keep on topic, exhaust it, and then move to the next. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Great. Thanks, Mark.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: On the ban, the Israeli ban, it also – it includes the Palestinian Americans who go to their homes and grounds in the West Bank, not only in the Green Line where Israel is. So you don’t have a position on this? They are not going to Israel. And I can understand Israel exercising sovereignty over its territory, but these people are going to the West Bank, they’re including Palestinian Americans that regularly go there. So you don’t have a position on this if they are turned back from the airport?
MR TONER: Well, again, I think I’ve stated what our position would be on this, which is that while we oppose boycotts and sanctions of the state of Israel, we also support firmly freedom of expression. That said, it’s – this is a sovereign decision for Israel to make regarding its borders. And we’ve been through this before, Said. I’m not trying to say – I’m happy to discuss it again --
QUESTION: Okay, I understand.
MR TONER: -- but I’d refer you to them to justify --
QUESTION: But I think you --
MR TONER: But I’d refer you to them to rationalize and get perspective to why they passed this legislation.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Let me just move on. On Lieberman, then --
MR TONER: Yeah, yeah, sure thing.
QUESTION: -- today out of the meeting, Mr. Lieberman made a statement right before he left Tel Aviv yesterday or the day before saying that they have been warned by the United States not to annex the West Bank lest aid be cut off. Do you have any comment on that? Was that a topic that was discussed with Secretary Tillerson?
MR TONER: Again, I wasn’t in the meeting, but what I can say about that is President Trump’s, in fact, made clear that he’s committed to working with Israel and Palestinians on a comprehensive peace deal that will allow both sides to live in peace and security they deserve. The administration needs to have the chance to fully consult with all parties on the way forward and that process is just getting started, but again, to quote the President, he’d like to see a level of reasonableness on the part of both parties with respect to the way forward. That’s – yeah.
QUESTION: And my last question, I promise, on this issue. Today being the International Women’s Day, there remains dozens of Palestinian women underage in Israeli prison that have been detained under administrative detention, which is internationally illegal and so on. Do you have any comment on that?
MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, Said, we’ve talked about this before as well. We respect Israel’s right to ensure the security of its people. We respect its judicial system. We respect the integrity of its democratic institutions. We’ve always said, though, that in taking actions, regardless of whether it’s out of security or whatever legal actions they take against Palestinians, that they do so always acting with restraint and with respect to the dignity of these individuals. I’m not particularly aware of the example that you brought up, but certainly, I think that would fall under that rubric.
QUESTION: Can we move to Syria?
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: The White House has made clear that they want to look at potential cuts to all foreign aid. Does that include money that the U.S. gives to Israel?
MR TONER: Not going to necessarily say this country or that country. I think what I said yesterday was that Secretary Tillerson, when he’s looking at – and I think at the start of a new administration, it’s appropriate time to do such a thing – but when he’s looking at how we’re spending assistance while seeing the value of that assistance, he’s assessing. He’s assessing which countries are receiving, how much assistance they’re receiving, and whether that’s appropriate. So I think that’s across the board. It applies to everyone at this point.
QUESTION: So the money that you give to Israel is under review right now?
MR TONER: I think it’s safe to say that he’s looking – we’re taking a universal look at how our assistance dollars are – this is American taxpayer dollars and we’re mindful of that.
QUESTION: And what’s the timeframe for that review?
MR TONER: A fair question. I mean, I think it’s in respect to the budget cycle, so we’re still in somewhat early days in the budget cycle, but it would be obviously in line with that because we’re looking at budget numbers.
QUESTION: But he hasn’t set his own two-week or whatever timeframe on it --
MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of, no.
QUESTION: -- or something like that? Okay.
MR TONER: Let’s – are we done with – where were we? Israel?
QUESTION: Israel.
MR TONER: Yeah, we kind of morphed into budget, but go ahead – on still – can we move to Syria or you want to --
QUESTION: This is only loosely related to Israel, but --
MR TONER: Okay. Sure.
QUESTION: -- it sort of follows a little bit.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: So given the respect for sovereignty that you just espoused, does that mean you – does that translate into your having no issues with the Christian charity being booted out of India and Mercy Corps being deregistered in Turkey?
MR TONER: So you’re right, and you’re talking about two particular cases and I would like to address those. You’re talking about the closure of Compassion International in India. While I’d refer you to Compassion, the – Compassion International for specifics about this action, we of course are committed to the health and vibrancy of civil society, and we strongly advocate for a strong civil society and organizations that are working in that sphere around the world. I think, unfortunately, we’ve seen over the past couple of years a number of foreign-funded NGOs in India that have encountered significant challenges in continuing their operations. And we believe it’s imperative that all parties work transparently and cooperatively in a way that, obviously, respects India’s laws but also encourages a transparent process, and these are views that we’ve made clear to the Indian Government.
I think in general the same answer applies with respect to Mercy Corps, which was deregistered in Turkey, and we’re in contact with Mercy Corps both in Turkey and the United States. Mercy Corps is a valuable partner. It provides critical humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees in Turkey and the region. And as all of us are aware, Turkey has seen an enormous influx of refugees from Syria, so this is an organization that directly assists those individuals and those families, and our embassy in Ankara continues to engage with Turkish officials on this matter. We’ve also informed the Government of Turkey of our concerns regarding Mercy Corps’ closure and the impact it’s going to have on their ability to provide, as I said, the critical humanitarian assistance that’s needed.
QUESTION: Do you question that they have the right to close them down?
MR TONER: Well again, look, how I would phrase that is just exactly how I put it with respect with India, that these are – we think that these are NGOs that are operating in what we’d like to see as a healthy civil society. These NGOs do valuable work overseas. Certainly, these countries and governments have their own reasons for the laws they pass, but we believe it should be transparent and clear why they’re shutting down these organizations.
QUESTION: Can we stay on India?
MR TONER: We can stay on India.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR TONER: What’s that? I’m sorry, I --
QUESTION: Why they’re shutting down these organizations?
MR TONER: Well, again, with respect to the situation in India with Compassion --
QUESTION: So you wouldn’t have an issue with it --
MR TONER: What?
QUESTION: You wouldn’t have an issue with it if they explained it fully and --
MR TONER: So --
QUESTION: It sounds like you’re expressing great concern for Syrian refugees, which is one thing, but --
MR TONER: Well, we are and Mercy Corps is working in that sphere.
QUESTION: Yeah, but – right, right, but --
MR TONER: I think we’d like to see – sorry, Matt, just to continue, I think we’d like to see the rationale behind clearly explained because we believe that these – both these organizations are doing good work.
QUESTION: Okay. So my – my question was, then, you don’t believe that it has been clearly explained, the rationale --
MR TONER: Correct.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Yeah, sorry.
Yeah.
QUESTION: One follow-up and one question. The follow-up is that you just mentioned that over the years, few – last few years you have been talking to or reaching out to the Indian Government. Have the – have you got any reply back from the Indian Government about what is going on with these NGO closures?
MR TONER: Well, I’m not going to necessarily speak to the substance of our diplomatic conversations with India, but I think we’re concerned. I mean, when we see, like I said, a group like Compassion International, which we believe is working and doing important work in India and is closed down, that it’s a matter of concern, but certainly we’ll raise that with the Indian Government.
I mean, look, one of the good things about our strong bilateral relations with India is that we can talk about these kinds of issues.
Please.
QUESTION: And the question is about the Kansas governor has written a letter to the Indian prime minister, and he has expressed his condolences to them and talked about the death, but he also has said that Kansas is a hospitable, welcoming place for Indians. So anything from the U.S. Government or the State Department on this subject? Any way you are trying to help the widow settle back? Anything on this subject you have?
MR TONER: So with respect to the governor of Kansas’s letter, I’d have to, obviously, refer you to his office to speak to the substance of it. But certainly, I think we’ve spoken out both at the White House and I know Secretary Tillerson has made clear to his counterparts our condolences over these killings. They are, it’s important to note, still under investigation by local law enforcement and we’re waiting to see the results of those investigations. So I don’t really want to speak to what may or may not have been the motivation behind these killings, but certainly, we share in the sorrow of the families and loved ones of these victims.
QUESTION: Is there anywhere the --
MR TONER: With respect to the widow – I’m sorry – I just am not aware of that, so I’d have to take that question and see if we’re able to offer any assistance to her.
Yeah. Please, Barbara.
QUESTION: Okay, so I have a question on Syria and then a follow-up on the budget from yesterday.
MR TONER: Okay.
QUESTION: It seems at this point there’s going to be a high level of continuity with Syria policy as regards counterterrorism – like, the fight against ISIS, obviously we’re still waiting for details on that – but what about policy on the political transition talks? Do we – is there one at this point in terms of how much the U.S. is going to be engaged? Because they were waiting in Geneva to try to find out about that. I know there was low – there was diplomatic representation, but in terms of the U.S. Government policy, what is going to be the approach going forward and what does it mean that the envoy for the Syria opposition has now also been given another big job as the envoy for Middle East peace, which suggests there might – we might be finding efficiencies there?
And then the question about the budget is: Just in terms of clarifying what you said yesterday, is it the feeling in this building that a cut to the budget of the size proposed would be a serious blow to American soft power that would be a threat to the country’s national security, which is how the critics, including former military officers and diplomats, have been describing it? Is that also the view in this building?
MR TONER: Starting with Syria, we did have representation I think throughout the duration of the talks in Geneva. We have had I think observer status at the talks in Astana because we’re not a party to those negotiations. Where we stand with respect to the political side or the ongoing civil war in Syria is that we still want to see and believe strongly that there is only a political solution to what’s happening there. There’s no military one. And we firmly support UN efforts to broker a political process – first of all, of course, a nationwide cessation of hostilities, ceasefire, but then also a political process going forward.
Of course, these talks are ongoing in Geneva. We remain engaged, as I said, with Michael Ratney and his team. With respect to whether he’s got too much on his plate, I can assure you he’s a very competent diplomat and can handle both portfolios.
QUESTION: But wait a second. He doesn’t have the special envoy for the Middle East portfolio. He’s a – he’s the DAS.
MR TONER: He’s the DAS, of course. Yeah.
QUESTION: This is not a replacement for Frank Lowenstein, is it?
MR TONER: Again, I think we’re looking at restructuring and whether there will be a replacement for --
QUESTION: Exactly. But the --
MR TONER: But no, he’s --
QUESTION: But that other job that he has is not the special envoy job.
MR TONER: Right, no. Exactly. Yes. Thank you. Yeah, I mean, I can clarify what – so --
QUESTION: And in fact, there was – there have been DASes with that portfolio --
MR TONER: Yes. Yes.
QUESTION: -- even when there was a special envoy.
MR TONER: Yes. So he is now both the special envoy for Syria and the Near East and – sorry, he’s both the special envoy for Syria and the Near Eastern Affairs Bureau’s deputy assistant secretary for the Levant and Israeli-Palestinian affairs.
QUESTION: Right. And there is no --
MR TONER: So that is not – correct, that is not --
QUESTION: -- special envoy for --
MR TONER: That’s correct.
And then finally, on your – so with respect to Syria --
QUESTION: So your position in terms of wanting a political solution is the same, but in terms of the policy of how you’re going to engage in the future, is that – has that been sorted? Where are we?
MR TONER: Well, I think we’re still looking at the way forward and how we might change our approach, look at new ways. But the essential goal is the same, which is we need to see a political process that results in a political transition – a peaceful political transition in Syria. That remains the challenge and it’s a formidable one. And obviously, that needs to be preceded by some kind of nationwide or at least credible cessation of hostilities on the ground. We’ve been supportive of current efforts, even though we’re not involved, to obtain that kind of ceasefire on the ground. Currently that’s being worked through by Turkey and Russia in Astana. But we also – again, the basic precepts remain: We want to see access to communities that have been besieged so we can provide humanitarian assistance, we want to see a cessation of hostilities, and then we want to see a political process.
With respect to the budget – sorry, I’ll get to you, I apologize. Your question on the budget, Barbara, was – quickly.
QUESTION: Does this building also see a significant cut to the budget as a threat to soft power --
MR TONER: Oh, right.
QUESTION: -- and a national security threat?
MR TONER: Again, I think we’re looking – as I said yesterday, we’re still in early days with respect to the budget. I’m not going to speak to any figures that were out there with respect to the cuts that may or not be in play for the State Department, because all of that is being discussed right now as part of the budget process. I think what I said yesterday still holds, which is that Secretary Tillerson is resolved to ensure that this building, that its mission – missions, embassies and consulates overseas have the necessary resources to carry out their mission.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Syria, yeah, let’s go --
QUESTION: Follow-up --
MR TONER: Not on Syria? Syria.
QUESTION: Syria. Syria.
QUESTION: On Syria.
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: Just – the first time you said “a political solution;” the second time you said “transition.” Can you clarify what the Trump administration’s views are on Assad?
MR TONER: Sure, I – sure, sure, sure and very quickly here. So what I meant by that was to say that we’ve always or we’ve long said there’s no military solution – look – to what’s happening in Syria. What we need is a – and the UN has broker – or has laid out what would be a political process that would lead to a peaceful political transition to a – hopefully a democratic government.
QUESTION: And does the new administration believe that Bashar Assad could play a role in that new government or --
MR TONER: Again, our policy with respect to President Assad has not really changed, and that is that we believe that this – his ultimate fate needs to be something that is worked through – that is resolved, rather – through this process and through this negotiations and through this transition.
QUESTION: When you say that your position hasn’t really changed, but the previous administration’s position was that he must go. Is it the same now? Is it the same --
MR TONER: But I qualified it by saying that also – that we’re looking at as – again, as I said, made clear on a wide spectrum of issues, new approaches, new ideas, new ways of looking at. But I said the basic precepts remain the same, which is that we’ve still got a very complicated situation, a conflict on the ground in Syria, and we’re looking at ways that we can effectively resolve it, put a durable ceasefire in place, and then move towards political negotiations. We’re still supportive of the UN process that’s leading that effort.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: So are you no longer meeting at all?
QUESTION: Dealing with President Assad --
QUESTION: Michel. No, I said and we’ve said this before, Said. We’ve said that President Assad – we, the United States, believe he’s – that he’s not valid as the president of Syria, but --
QUESTION: No, you – no, you stated that his days were numbered --
MR TONER: But, but – no, but look, we’ve – this has evolved. And that is and our current position is that the fate of President Assad is something that needs to be worked out by the parties through political negotiations.
Michel, quickly.
QUESTION: Yeah, Mark, the U.S.-Turkey-Russia chiefs of staff meetings have concluded in Turkey. Do you have any readout for these meetings?
MR TONER: I do, hold on one second, please.
QUESTION: And I have a follow-up too, please.
MR TONER: Got to wade through my – I do have something on that. Just give me a moment. So with respect to the meetings in Turkey is what you’re referring to, right, Michel?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: Yeah. So first off, the meeting was an effort to more effectively communicate operational intent while seeking new concepts for de-confliction. So what we mentioned before and mentioned yesterday, really the focus was on de-confliction. With respect to Manbij, which I thought you asked about – if you didn’t, then I’ll offer it up – they did discuss Manbij, but only in the context of the larger fight against ISIS in the region. They also discussed other terrorist organizations that are active including PKK, al-Qaida, al-Nusrah Front as part of the regional security picture.
QUESTION: Mark, on Syria --
QUESTION: Have you reached an agreement – Mark, one more on this. Have you reached an agreement with Turkey regarding the support that the U.S. provides to the – to YPG, and are you now on the same page or not?
MR TONER: Well, again, I would say, with respect to the YPG, we’ve always long supported the YPG within the context of the SDF, the Syrian Democratic Forces that are operating in northern Syria. They’ve been very effective – we’ve talked about this many times – in removing ISIS from the battlefield, dislodging them, and ultimately destroying them. I think they’ve liberated some 6,000 kilometers and more than 100 villages from ISIS around Raqqa since the operation began on November 4th. We’re also obviously mindful of Turkey’s concerns with respect to the YPG and we respectfully disagree with them linking the YPG with the PKK. And let’s be very clear that, with respect to the PKK, we still view them as a terrorist organization.
QUESTION: Mark, just on (inaudible) --
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Let’s – are we – let’s finish Syria and then a few more questions, guys. Got to keep --
QUESTION: Syria --
QUESTION: So just specifically on the meeting in Antalya and I suppose also the meetings underway in Kazakhstan, this was a tripartite meeting – Russia, Turkey, the U.S. Now, on the counterterror mission in Syria, previously Turkey has been described as being a member of the U.S. coalition. Now, this is a three-way meeting; the optics were all three equal parties and it’s been discussed as a three-way meeting. Do you still regard Turkey as being part of your anti-ISIS coalition, or is it a --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- separate player in that organization?
MR TONER: No, no, not at all, and I just want to emphasize that it’s a very complicated – I mean, the best way to describe this is it’s a – this battle space is, as we all know from countless conversations in this room, is extremely complex. And so the focus – my understanding – the focus of this meeting was, again, to strengthen the de-confliction mechanisms that we have already in place to ensure the safety and well-being of our various forces who are operating on the ground in Syria.
QUESTION: But there are British, Australian, French forces involved, and they were represented at that meeting by --
MR TONER: Correct. Correct, but --
QUESTION: -- the U.S. chief of staff. The Turkey – Turkish forces were represented by their own chief of staff.
MR TONER: But Turkish forces are – I’d have to check, but I think Turkish forces are present on the battlefield in a way that is more significant than many of these others.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Syria (inaudible) --
MR TONER: Let’s finish up with Syria and – what – do you --
QUESTION: Can I (inaudible) North Korea?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: Yeah, are we ready to move to North Korea? We haven’t gotten there yet.
QUESTION: Syria (inaudible) --
MR TONER: Quickly Syria, and then I want to get to North Korea.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Please.
QUESTION: I realize this is probably better addressed to the Pentagon, but still: Do you think it’s a one-off event or the chiefs plan to meet again? Is this some kind of regular dialogue now, trilateral form?
MR TONER: I can say that the meeting – the purpose behind it was to enhance senior-level communications and improve operational, as I said, de-confliction. I can’t speak to whether they’ll be in ongoing meetings. I can’t rule it out, either.
QUESTION: Syria.
QUESTION: Syria --
MR TONER: Let’s switch to DPRK, guys. Got to keep it moving.
QUESTION: Mark, is the United States seriously considering the Chinese offer that the U.S. suspend military exercises in exchange for North Korea giving up its ballistic missile and nuclear program?
MR TONER: Good question. So just to unpack it – and everyone knows, I think, what you’re talking about with respect to the public remarks of the Chinese foreign minister – look, we remain open to dialogue with North Korea with the aim of returning to credible and authentic negotiations on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
But – and I’ll be very clear about this – the onus is on North Korea to take meaningful actions toward denuclearization and refrain from provocations. So to be very clear here, our joint military exercises are transparent, they’re defense-oriented, and have been carried out regularly and openly under the Combined Forces Command for going on 40 years. And they’re designed to increase readiness and defend the Republic of Korea, protect the region, maintain stability in the Korean Peninsula, and they’re also a demonstration of U.S. commitment to the alliance.
In contrast to this, North Korea has in 2006 alone – ’16, rather, alone – carried out two nuclear tests and 24 ballistic middle – ballistic missile tests, all in violation of international law.
QUESTION: So the U.S. believes it’s – the onus is on the North Koreans to act first and won’t give any concession unless the North Koreans do?
MR TONER: What I want to make clear is that this is apples and oranges. This is not – what we’re doing in terms of our defense cooperation with South Korea is in no way comparable to the blatant disregard that North Korea has shown with respect to international law and international concerns repeatedly about its nuclear weapons program. And – excuse me – and frankly, the world needs to understand this isn’t about the U.S. and North Korea. I mean, the world – certainly the region, but the world is threatened by nuclear Korea – North Korea’s, rather, actions, and every nation needs to look at how we can better respond.
QUESTION: Is North Korea capable of credible and authentic, do you believe, the current Government of North Korea?
MR TONER: We haven’t seen it thus far.
QUESTION: Can we follow-up on --
QUESTION: So we heard that --
MR TONER: Michelle. Is this still on DPRK?
QUESTION: Yeah, it is. Thank you.
MR TONER: Great. Okay.
QUESTION: So Ambassador Haley said today --
MR TONER: Yep.
QUESTION: -- that we’re not dealing with a rational person here. Is it the U.S.’s position that Kim Jong-un is not sane, or not rational? Or are those things two different states of being?
MR TONER: I think the point she was making – and I hesitate to speak for her, but she did speak very articulately in – coming out of a UN Security Council consultations earlier today on DPRK. I think the point there is that North Korea’s behavior has not been rational, and efforts up ‘til today – whether it’s Six-Party Talks, whether it’s sanctions – all of the efforts that we have taken thus far to attempt to persuade North Korea to, again, engage in meaningful negotiations, have fallen short, to be honest. So we need to look at new ways to convince them, to persuade them that it’s in their interest.
QUESTION: So what do you make of China’s suggestion on throwing something out there and then saying that this seems to be heading for some kind of a collision?
MR TONER: Well, look – a couple of things. One is China is obviously concerned about the threat that nuclear – that North Korea’s nuclear program poses to the region. That’s legitimate; we all share that concern. I think we all share concern over North Korea’s actions. I think we differ somewhat in our approach. But I also think that’s going to be, obviously, front and center on Secretary Tillerson’s trip to the region next week. It’s going to be an opportunity for him to sit with his counterparts in China, in Korea, and in Japan, and talk through what our options are and new ways to look at resolving the situation.
QUESTION: Thanks.
QUESTION: Can I follow-up on North Korea?
MR TONER: Let’s stay on North Korea, and I promise I’ll get to you. Last couple questions back here, and then I really do need to run.
Please.
QUESTION: You said at the start that the U.S. is willing to consider dialogue with the North. Does that mean you’d be willing to consider one-on-one, government-to-government talks with North Korea?
MR TONER: I don’t want to --
QUESTION: And just – is the idea of --
MR TONER: Yeah. Nick – yeah.
QUESTION: -- suspending these drills something that’s on the table?
MR TONER: Sorry, is the idea of suspending – I think at this point, again, we don’t see it as a viable deal in the sense of it’s not – it’s not a fair trade for us to suspend what our defense-oriented exercises, based in large part – well, fully on the threat that North Korea poses to the peninsula.
QUESTION: And on the dialogue?
MR TONER: On the dialogue – I think, look, we’re open to – and I don’t want to get into discussing possible formats, because we’re so far away from that right now. What we’re saying is if North Korea were to signal that it was capable of and ready for these kinds of negotiations, then that’s something we would consider. But we’re not there.
QUESTION: (Inaudible)
QUESTION: It’s always a hypothetical (inaudible) raised.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Go ahead, Tamar.
QUESTION: The – can you confirm the authenticity of the video by the son by the Kim Jong-nam --
MR TONER: We’re aware of the video, but we can’t confirm its authenticity at this point in time.
QUESTION: The group who helps to release the video says that countries, including United States, China, Netherlands help to provide the emergency humanitarian assistance to the son. Can you --
MR TONER: I wouldn’t speak to that in any case. Thanks.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Let’s do a couple Russia questions. Are we done with North Korea?
QUESTION: North Korea.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
MR TONER: Okay. North Korea there, and then I’ll take last one on – and then Russia.
QUESTION: The Chinese --
MR TONER: So boom, boom, boom. Please.
QUESTION: Thank you, Mark. The Chinese foreign minister, yesterday he still complained that that’s the wrong choice for – to deploy the THAAD in the South Korea. So from your point of view, is it the wrong choice?
MR TONER: Again, I think we – sorry, I don’t mean to talk over you. Again, we were – I made very clear yesterday, the reason we’re undertaking the deployment of THAAD, with the consent of the Republic of Korea, is out of our concern that North Korea’s nuclear program poses for the peninsula. It is clearly not aimed at, in any way, shape, or form, China. It is a defensive system. We’ve made that very clear, and we’ll continue to make that clear with China going forward.
Very quickly.
QUESTION: Could I follow up?
QUESTION: Yeah, on --
MR TONER: We’re switching the subject to, I assume, Syria or --
QUESTION: Yes, Syria. You’ve – a delegation of the Kurdish National Council of Syria was in Washington last week and met with State Department officials, including Brett McGurk. Do you have a readout on that meeting?
MR TONER: Not sure that I do. I’ll take that and get back to you, okay? We’ll get that, definitely.
QUESTION: Okay, could I –
MR TONER: Yeah, please, go ahead. One more.
QUESTION: I was going to ask about the PKK in Sinjar then. There’s been clashes between --
MR TONER: We believe – our position on PKK in Sinjar remains the same. We don’t believe they should be there.
One more on Russia.
QUESTION: We now know that Russia has deployed a land-based cruise missile that violates the spirit of the intent of the arms control treaty. Does the State Department have a reaction to that and has Tillerson reached out to Lavrov to talk about it? And I have a follow-up.
MR TONER: Sure. So the United States obviously takes clear – takes seriously, rather, its international commitments and arms control obligations. And I think what you’re referring to is something we detailed most recently in the 2016 Compliance Report, which is that we believe Russian Federation – the Russian Federation remains in violation of its INF – Intermediate Nuclear Forces – Treaty obligations not to possess, produce, or flight test a ground-launched cruise missile with a range capability of 500 to five – 5,500 kilometers or to possess or produce launchers of such missiles.
I’m not going to comment beyond that because it gets into intelligence matters, but we do believe they’re in violation.
QUESTION: And has the Secretary reached out to anyone?
MR TONER: We have conveyed that. I’m not sure that the Secretary himself has conveyed that, but they’re quite clear that – of our concerns.
QUESTION: Just because in his confirmation hearing, Tillerson referred to having an open dialogue, frank dialogue with Russia. So how is he following through on that --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- if we’re not seeing reaction from him on a provocative (inaudible)?
MR TONER: Well, again, I – I was – I am not aware that it came up just in the bilat he had with Foreign Minister Lavrov specifically. I can’t speak beyond that whether it’s come up, but I do know that it has been conveyed by other means, by other officials.
QUESTION: Mark, sorry.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR TONER: That’s it, guys. Sorry, that’s it.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:01 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.
January 17, 2017
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - January 17, 2017
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 17, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
KYRGYZSTAN
CLIMATE CHANGE
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
SYRIA/IRAQ
SYRIA
RUSSIA
IRAQ/IRAN
TURKEY
SYRIA
BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
DEPARTMENT
THE GAMBIA
NIGERIA
BELARUS/ISRAEL/RUSSIA/AZERBAIJAN
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
BAHRAIN
YEMEN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:14 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody.
QUESTION: Hello.
MR KIRBY: A couple things at the top, and then we’ll get right at it.
We want to extend, on behalf of the State Department of the United States, our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those who were killed and injured in a plane crash – I’m sorry – Sunday outside Bishkek. We, of course, stand with the people of the Kyrgyz Republic as they observe a national day of mourning, and we offer our support to the government as they recover from this tragedy.
On the Green Climate Fund – and you’ll see a statement from me after the briefing as well – but today, the United States is announcing that it has made an additional $500 million grant to the Green Climate Fund. This grant follows last year’s initial grant of 500 million as part of the $3 billion pledge to the GCF made by President Obama in 2014. The GCF, the global climate – I’m sorry – the Green Climate Fund is a critical tool that helps catalyze billions of dollars in public and private investment in countries dealing not only with the challenges of climate change but the immense economic opportunities that are embedded in the transition to a lower-carbon economy. The United States is pleased to have played a leading role in the establishment of the GCF, and we are also pleased to be making this significant grant.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Well, that’s a bit of a surprise. I was going to start with something else, but since the incoming administration, which will take office in three days, is adamantly opposed to the Green Climate Fund and thinks that it’s a waste of money, why on – and you guys say you’re committed to a smooth transition, why would you do this $500 million now?
MR KIRBY: Well, it’s – first of all, it’s a continuation of --
QUESTION: In the last --
MR KIRBY: -- an initial 500 grant of a $3 billion pledge.
QUESTION: Yeah. Right.
MR KIRBY: Okay. So it – this is a continuation of this Administration’s --
QUESTION: I understand.
MR KIRBY: -- policy support and financial support to climate change initiatives.
QUESTION: When was the – the initial payment was made on, what, January 17th last year? Is it that? Is that why it’s coming today?
MR KIRBY: I’ll have to get to you the exact date of --
QUESTION: It just seems a bit surprising to offer up or to give out a pretty significant amount of money that people on the Hill, as well as people in the incoming administration, have said they’re not going to --
MR KIRBY: There’s plenty of support on the Hill as well for climate change initiatives and this fund in particular. I’m not saying that everybody in Congress obviously supports --
QUESTION: Well, there’s been some pretty strenuous objections from Republicans, and they now control Congress.
MR KIRBY: And there’s also been some strident support from the other side of the aisle, Matt.
QUESTION: Yes, but now – they’re in the minority now, and --
MR KIRBY: But this Administration has committed to this fund, in fact helped stand it up, establish it. And it is entirely in keeping with the work that we’ve been doing across the interagency to try to look for ways to stem the effects of climate change. And this fund helps other economies, other countries, develop their own initiatives and help them deal with this.
QUESTION: Right. I understand that. And your reaction to my question is that you think that I am taking this personally. I’m not. I’m just wondering --
MR KIRBY: No. (Laughter.) I don’t think you’re taking it personally.
QUESTION: -- how it is – I’m not – but the fact of the matter is, is that this Administration is leaving office on Friday and this is a program that the incoming administration has raised serious questions about, if not outright opposition to.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: And it doesn’t seem to be fitting, in the spirit of a smooth transition, to put – make this kind of an outlay three – two and a half days, three days before --
MR KIRBY: Well, it’s not being – it’s not being – it’s not being done to try to provoke a reaction from the incoming administration or to try to dictate to them, one way or the other, how they are going to deal with climate issues.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But I mean, to take your argument to the extreme – and I’m not taking it personally, but to take it to the extreme that would me that we – for the entire time that this Administration is in office we simply don’t start – we don’t continue to execute and implement our own policy agenda items, and this is one of them. I mean just like we continue to --
QUESTION: Well, right. But --
MR KIRBY: Just like we continue to meet our commitments under the Iran deal.
QUESTION: Right. But this is really kind of the question of timing. I mean, there’s – was there something preventing you from doing this in, say, November or December? Why wait until January 17th?
MR KIRBY: Well, I – there was no concerted effort here to wait until two or three days to do this. It is a continuation.
QUESTION: Okay. Because --
MR KIRBY: This is an investment that had been long planned. I don’t --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I don’t believe there was any nefarious desire or intent to do it just two days before.
QUESTION: Okay. Well --
QUESTION: John, was this permitted under the – was this legitimate in any way under the continuing resolution for the last budget? Was there any – wasn’t there some attempt to try to prohibit continued spending on this? Or am I wrong?
MR KIRBY: No, actually. Congress provided $4.3 billion in funding for the Economic Support Fund, that account in Fiscal Year 2016, which is used to fund environmental programs and many other foreign assistance programs and is a primary account through which the Administration requested this particular funding. So while over one-half of the account is earmarked for specific programs or activities, the remainder is available for other programs to carry out the ESF authority in the Foreign Assistance Act.
So for the Global – for the Green Climate Fund – I keep saying – want to say – I keep wanting to say global. For the Green Climate Fund, the Administration is using a portion of the Fiscal Year 2016 ESF account, not earmarked by Congress and is consistent with past president for – past precedent for providing funds to support this particular fund.
QUESTION: So last year, it came from the same pot of money?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, it’s from the – it’s from the Fiscal Year 2016 appropriation. Yeah.
QUESTION: Past precedent.
MR KIRBY: What did I say?
QUESTION: President.
MR KIRBY: Precedent.
QUESTION: You’re not the only one who --
MR KIRBY: Thank you for the enunciation assistance.
QUESTION: You’re not the only one who’s made that – and just last thing.
MR KIRBY: That was not a Freudian slip.
QUESTION: So is this money – is this – this money is out the door? It can’t be taken back, should the next administration decide it does not like this program?
MR KIRBY: Well, that’s certainly a decision that the incoming administration could – they can discuss it. I can tell you though that the funds have been obligated and expended to the trust fund, the GCF trust fund.
QUESTION: So it’s gone?
MR KIRBY: And now they are controlled by the GCF board --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- which includes the United States, to decide how to use them effectively.
QUESTION: Well, okay. Do you know – does the board – could the U.S. representative to this board say, all right, no, you can’t have this money anymore?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I said, the United States is represented on the board and therefore has a voice on the board. I can’t speak to what board discussions or what administration discussions might occur after the 20th. Certainly, this is something they can discuss. But the money has been provided to the board now for use.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: And did you pay it at the same time last year?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know, Carol.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: I’ll have to get back to you on that.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Said.
QUESTION: Can we go to Syria?
MR KIRBY: Wait.
QUESTION: No. Well, that was just this one issue. I want to – kind of about Syria but also just about transition in general, has there been a decision made on who will be the acting or interim secretary, should the president-elect’s nominee not be confirmed by Friday?
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that --
QUESTION: Or Friday afternoon?
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that there’s been that decision made. That’s a question really better put to the Trump transition team.
QUESTION: Okay. And then along that line and having to do with Syria, has there been a decision made on participation in the Kazakhstan conference on the 23rd?
MR KIRBY: Again, that’s a decision that should be posed to the Trump transition team. I’m not aware that they have made a decision --
QUESTION: Okay. But so the – on neither of those there has – or there – yes or no? Has there been any contact between the current Administration and the transition team on either of those issues?
MR KIRBY: I’m not – well, as you know, I try not to talk about our communications with the transition team. I’m not aware of any specific discussions or where those discussions have fallen out.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Obviously, the – I’m given to understand – excuse me – that the transition team is certainly mindful of succession responsibilities come the 20th, should the nominee not be confirmed. But I’m not aware that they’ve made any final decisions with respect to that, and that’s really for them to speak to.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: On the conference, again, I’m not aware that there’s been any specific communication with the incoming team about this. But as you know, the conference begins next week, and so therefore it would be entirely up to them to decide whether to participate and at what level.
QUESTION: Right. Now, you – has this Administration been in any contact with the Russians or the Turks about whether – the Russians say that they have invited the new – the incoming administration to participate. The Iranians, on the other hand, have said basically over my dead body; they don’t want any U.S. participation in this. Has there been an invitation that you’re aware of, through this building, to the occupants of the offices in this building post-January 20th?
MR KIRBY: What I – I think the Secretary spoke to this over the weekend. We are certainly aware of reports of an invitation to the incoming team. And again, that makes perfect sense, given the calendar and when this conference starts. I’m not aware of any specific communication to or with us now with respect to attendance at the conference. But this is a decision that has to be made by the incoming administration.
Said.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Have you encouraged the next administration to participate should they --
MR KIRBY: Well, the Secretary --
QUESTION: -- issue an invitation, like he said --
MR KIRBY: The Secretary said so publicly over the weekend that he would absolutely encourage them to participate in the discussion. But again, it’s their decision to make.
QUESTION: I want to ask you about what --
QUESTION: Could I --
QUESTION: -- is going on, the assault on Deir al-Zour at the present time. There is – ISIS is conducting an assault on the Syrian town of Deir al-Zour.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: They’re saying that this was made possible because many of the fighters fled Mosul and they were actually basically – they go in essence that you did not attack them on – en route or anything like this. Do you have any comment on that? And could you update us on what the status is as far as the Deir al-Zour assault is?
MR KIRBY: Well, no. Actually, Said, I can’t give you an update on the status of Deir al-Zour or what’s going on on the ground. I simply – we don’t have great visibility in terms of tactical operations one way or another. Certainly mindful that ISIL has a presence there, mindful of reports that the regime, backed by their supporters, is trying to deal with that. But I would refer you to the regime and to their Russian backers to speak to specifically what’s going on on the ground there.
QUESTION: But you reject the notion that you looked the other way and basically allowed them? You reject that notion, that you looked at these fighters flowing from Mosul to Syria, you looked the other way, the coalition fighters or airplanes did not attack them?
MR KIRBY: I think any suggestion that – any suggestion that the coalition has not taken seriously opportunities to continue to pound Daesh from the air and to continue to support effective fighters on the ground who are going after Daesh is – obviously flies in the face of facts. The fact is that Deir al-Zour has been in an ISIL-dominated area of Syria for quite some time. It’s not new that they’re there. And we’ve had this discussion about Mosul in the past. And yes, we knew that ISIL fighters would leave Mosul as the campaign started. Not at all surprised that some of them would run away. And the coalition has – and you’ve seen the reports out of the Pentagon – has taken advantage of opportunities when they can to hit these guys. It doesn’t mean you’re going to get every single one, and I can’t say definitively that none of them fled to Deir al-Zour. But to say that that hasn’t been part of previously ISIL-dominated areas in Syria, again, is just not – it doesn’t comport with facts.
QUESTION: And my last one on this one. Foreign Minister Lavrov said that you – that the United States tried to utilize the emergence and the attacks by Daesh as a way – as a useful tool, maybe, to bring down the regime in Syria. Do you have any comment on that? Can you respond to that?
MR KIRBY: There’s --
QUESTION: You probably saw the --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, no, I saw his comments. We have talked about this before.
QUESTION: But this is also new today.
MR KIRBY: What we want to see in terms of the civil war in Syria is a political solution, and that’s why the Secretary worked so hard in his tenure to try to get a transition in place, a ceasefire that can be meaningful, humanitarian aid, and political talks resume, so that we can have a political solution actually discussed and realized.
The fight against Daesh – there is a military component against that, against Daesh. And that is the purpose of it, to go after Daesh. We’ve long said in terms of the civil war, there’s not going to be a military solution; it’s got to be political. But the activities that the coalition conducts in Syria is against Daesh and Daesh alone. And any suggestion that we have in any way used that effort to try to spur some outcome, a separate outcome in the civil war, again, just doesn’t jive with the facts on the ground.
QUESTION: Can – as long as we’ve – we’re talking about what Lavrov said, he also said that the United States had tried to convert some of its diplomats here in Washington to spies --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- at one point dropping $10,000 into a car. And it denied that there had ever been any harassment of U.S. diplomats, said it found no evidence of that.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, look, I --
QUESTION: Can you respond to that, please?
MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is – I mean, I’ve seen the foreign minister’s comments, and I think he can speak to allegations all he wants. I’m not going to – I’ve got nothing more for you on that. The only thing I would say, and is what we’ve said so many times before, that over the last year or plus we have seen an increase in the harassment of our diplomats. You saw the very dramatic video yourself of one of our employees literally being assaulted as he was trying to enter the embassy grounds.
And it is because of that increase in harassment, one of the reasons why, the President just in the last couple of weeks sanctioned some additional entities and individuals in Russia and declared persona non grata on some 35 Russian diplomats, and shut down two facilities which we know where we – which we know were – had intel – some intelligence purposes to them. So we’ve laid pretty clear, and it’s been – at least in – you’ve – in terms of the incident I just talked about, you can see for yourself the harassment that our diplomats have faced. But I’ll let Foreign Minister Lavrov speak to the specifics of whatever allegations he wants to make. But again, I think we’ve been very clear about where we are.
QUESTION: Is that a denial that you attempted to turn diplomats into --
MR KIRBY: I’m – I’m going to leave it – I’m going to leave it where I did.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John? Another version or stories also involve $10,000 while the other – the version is involve the medicine and apology from Secretary Kerry. Was there any apology from Secretary Kerry in regard to that?
MR KIRBY: Look, again, you can talk to Foreign Minister Lavrov about his views and what he said. I’ve made clear. The harassment that our diplomats have been facing for more than a year has been obvious; you’ve seen it for yourself. The President took action a couple of weeks ago; and again, I’ll leave it there.
QUESTION: So there’s absolutely no apology from Secretary Kerry on this?
MR KIRBY: I think I’ve answered the question.
QUESTION: Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: Iran has appointed a new ambassador to Iraq and the Kurds seem to like him better than the previous ambassador for various reasons. Do you share that view about the new ambassador or have a different view or any view on him?
MR KIRBY: We actually don’t have a view on this. These are decisions that sovereign nations make and they should speak for them.
QUESTION: Well, what if they appointed a terrorist to be ambassador? Would you have any problem?
MR KIRBY: Again, this is an issue for these two nations to speak to. We’re not going to take a position on every ambassador by every nation to some third-party nation.
QUESTION: And a question on Turkey. They arrested the shooter in the night – New Year’s --
MR KIRBY: The alleged shooter, yeah.
QUESTION: The alleged shooter in the New Year’s attack on the Istanbul night club. Turkey’s deputy prime minister said that it appears that that attack was quote, “not just a terrorist organization’s action, but there was also an intelligence organization involved.” Do you know anything about that? Have any more --
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any additional information on the investigation into this attack. We condemned it very, very, very clearly when it occurred. And our thoughts and prayers continue to go out to all of those that were affected by it. But this is a Turkish investigation; Turkish authorities need to speak to what they’re learning at whatever pace they’re comfortable doing.
Yeah?
QUESTION: John, there are reports suggesting that the Syrian Kurdish group PYD will open an office here in Washington for its representative. I was wondering if you’re aware of this or if this topic came up in official meeting – the diplomatic --
MR KIRBY: Not aware of it. Haven’t heard anything about it, no.
QUESTION: Okay. But if they open, there is no restriction on that, right? I mean --
MR KIRBY: I haven’t heard anything about it. I just don’t have any information for you guys on that, I just don’t. Never heard it.
Yeah?
QUESTION: The Balkans. Can you confirm that U.S. imposed sanctions on Mr. Milorad Dodik, who is president of smaller entity in Bosnia Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, the embassy – its embassy in Belgrade said something about that, but not too openly. And I would like to know, can you confirm that please?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, let me --
QUESTION: And why?
MR KIRBY: Give me one second. Okay, Elizabeth, where is it? I’m going to take the question for you, okay? I’ll have to get back to you.
Catherine?
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: A WikiLeaks question. Has the State Department ever asked Britain or Ecuador to take action against Julian Assange and WikiLeaks?
MR KIRBY: I think I addressed this back in October, Catherine. There was some reports out there that Secretary Kerry had asked – specifically asked Ecuadorian officials to, quote/unquote, “shut down” his – Mr. Assange’s access to the internet, and we were – and we denied that, obviously, very clearly. It wasn’t – just the allegations weren’t true. So then we – Secretary Kerry and the State Department – did not take any overt action in terms of shutting down his access to the internet.
That said, we have been nothing but clear since WikiLeaks started several years ago, in many diplomatic channels, on many levels, and over the years in many instances about our concerns about the harm that continues to come from the information that is – that WikiLeaks obtains and WikiLeaks then publishes to – certainly to our national security interests. So this is an ongoing issue for us, and we are certainly engaged and continue to be engaged diplomatically on it.
QUESTION: I just want to decode that a little bit.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: So is that senior State Department leadership speaking through backchannels to their counterparts in Britain, Ecuador, other countries?
MR KIRBY: Well, without getting into the details of diplomatic discussions, I think you can safely assume that on many levels here at the State Department – and I would venture to say across the interagency – there are constant, ongoing discussions about – and it’s not just WikiLeaks, but since we’re on WikiLeaks, certainly about the harm that continues to come from the information that this organization gets and then publishes.
QUESTION: Just one more follow-up.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Do you think that’s been effective? Because for 10 years and to this day, WikiLeaks and Julian Assange continue to release information that the U.S. characterizes as harmful to national security.
MR KIRBY: Who I think – I think we would all admit that we’d like to be able to find better solutions here. And it’s not that we aren’t frustrated by the ability of this organization to continue to leak harmful information, information that hurts not only our national security interests, but in some cases, the national security interests of our allies, friends, and partners. And it is damaging, and I think it is not just an American problem; it’s an international problem. And we continue to have discussions, as I said, with our allies, friends, and partners about how to deal with this. But obviously, the group’s ability to obtain information and to publish it persists, and that’s a problem, and we have worked on it.
QUESTION: I just have one more follow-up there. Has – do you think the most significant damage has been to the relationship between the United States and other countries, in terms of other nations losing trust that the information is safe?
MR KIRBY: Well, I would let, I think, other countries speak to that themselves. I can’t characterize how each and every other nation may have been affected or may have reacted to leaks of information. And I think you can certainly look, in recent years, to the way Germany reacted, for instance, in one case. And they’re really better postured --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- to speak for their own. Certainly, there have been instances when these leaks have caused tensions. There’s no doubt about that. But I think, as we get ready now to transition to a new administration, that we’re comfortable that whatever tensions had been caused have been worked through, and we’re going to – and we continue to have strong bilateral relationships with many of these nations, and we expect that that will continue.
QUESTION: Just one final if I could: With hindsight, do you think more pressure could have been brought to bear by the United States?
MR KIRBY: I think this is a global – this is an international problem, Catherine. It’s not – it isn’t just about the United States. And we continue to take this very, very seriously. We continue to have meaningful conversations with international partners. But obviously, you can’t control each and every individual or actor, whether it’s a state actor or a non-state actor, from providing information to Mr. Assange, who then he determines to publish.
It is damaging. It’s harmful. And we’d all like it to stop. And we’ve worked hard with our partners to do the best we can. And some of that stems from trying to have better cyber security methods in place. It’s a dangerous dynamic realm, and it’s not perfect. So I think, obviously, we’d be the first to admit that we’re not happy to continue to see leaks of harmful information being provided to him – information of a harmful nature being provided to him, which he then publishes. And I think we would all agree that, certainly, more should be and should continue to be done. Okay?
QUESTION: Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Thank you. Can we go to West Africa? First, Gambia or the Gambia – the outgoing president has declared state of emergency. I’d like to have your reaction to that. And he’s accusing of foreign interference. To your knowledge, which countries is he talking about?
MR KIRBY: He’s – I’m sorry. Say that last part again.
QUESTION: The outgoing president is accusing of foreign interference. To your knowledge, is --
MR KIRBY: Foreign --
QUESTION: Interference.
MR KIRBY: Oh, interference.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Look, I mean, he’s – President Jammeh is losing opportunities to respect the will of the Gambian people and to peacefully hand over power to the president-elect, which is supposed to happen on Thursday. Doing so would allow him to leave office with his head held high and to protect the Gambian people from potential chaos. Failure to do so will put his legacy – and, more importantly, the Gambia – in peril, and we have been clear about this.
I don’t know what interference he’s referring to, but we obviously want to see the Gambia succeed and we want to see the president-elect properly installed and to have in place a government which is responsible for and responsive to the needs of the Gambian people.
Yeah.
QUESTION: And – sorry, another one – another country in West Africa: Nigeria. Are you aware of this bombing by accident by the Nigerian air force against a camp --
MR KIRBY: All I saw was press reports on that. I would refer you to Nigeria for more information. I don’t have anything on that. All I saw was a headline here before I came out today.
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up on that?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any information about what support the U.S. is still providing the Nigerian Government as far as going after Boko Haram? I know in the past that there had been logistical, equipment, training.
MR KIRBY: We do continue to provide some counterterrorism assistance, but Abbie, let me have the bureau get back to you with details on what that looks like. I don’t – I just don’t have that handy.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, the Government of Belarus has arrested Israeli-Russian blogger Alexander Lapshin based on request from Azerbaijan because the Government of Azerbaijan accuses this blogger for visiting Nagorno-Karabakh and also for some public statements that were not favorable for the Azerbaijani Government – particularly, as they phrased it, because there were public calls against the state by Lapshin. Now the Government of Azerbaijan also demands the extradition of Lapshin.
Israeli Government resisted this. Russia’s Foreign Minister Lavrov again resisted extradition today in his public statement. And the Committee to Protect Journalists from New York also called for unconditional release of the blogger. I was wondering if the Department of State follows the situation with arrest of the blogger.
MR KIRBY: First, I’d say this is really something for the relevant countries to speak to, especially when you’re talking about extradition requests. That’s really for them to speak to. Obviously, press freedom is important to us, and we talk about it all the time. I don’t have any specific information with respect to this case, but I’d refer you to the relevant countries to speak to that.
QUESTION: But you are concerned with the issue of free journalist movement --
MR KIRBY: We are always concerned with the issue of press freedom. That is something that we speak to almost every day, sadly. We have to speak to it every day. So certainly, our concern over the freedom of journalists to do their jobs remains very robust, but I don’t have any specific information on this case. And as for – you’re talking about foreign extradition requests. I don’t have – I just don’t have any knowledge of it, and that’s really not something that would be appropriate for the State Department to speak to anyway.
Said.
QUESTION: Very quickly on the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. But first of all, could you inform us of any kind of other content of the conversation between the Secretary of State and the prime minister of Israel in terms of maybe whether the Secretary of State requested that the Israeli Government refrain from excessive, let’s say, activities that may hinder the peace process as he laid it out in his vision, which is to accelerate settlements, maybe enforce more checkpoints, and so on?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any additional detail from the conversation that the Secretary had with Prime Minister Netanyahu. However, he did speak in broad terms to it when we were in Paris, and he made clear that the conversation was largely to provide some basic information about the conference as --
QUESTION: About the conference itself.
MR KIRBY: Huh?
QUESTION: Yeah, about the conference.
MR KIRBY: About how the conference was proceeding, and also to assure the prime minister that, as we have so many times in the past, that we were going to work to make sure the communique was properly balanced. And we felt that it was.
QUESTION: And are you disappointed that the British Government seems to have lobbied against the adoption of the communique by the European Union?
MR KIRBY: That’s something for the – that’s for the UK to speak to, Said.
QUESTION: Okay. I have just a couple more. The reason is because today, despite the objection of the attorney general of Israel, the Israeli Knesset passed a law allowing for the West Bank Military Court verdict to be admissible in Israel. Some think that this is really a prelude to annexation. Do you have any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: Actually, I do not. We’re – we don’t have a comment on this.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Oh, wait, wait. I got one – I got two questions on the same thing, same country: Bahrain.
MR KIRBY: How is that the same country?
QUESTION: What? I have two questions about Bahrain.
MR KIRBY: Oh, about the same country. Oh, okay.
QUESTION: Bahrain and Bahrain. Those are the two countries.
MR KIRBY: All right, I thought you were talking about Israel.
QUESTION: No, no, no, no.
MR KIRBY: And that’s why I was confused how a question on Bahrain – how that has to do with Israel, but now I understand.
QUESTION: Right. One is: Do you have any reaction to the execution of three prisoners that happened, I believe, either yesterday or the day before?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, we – we’ve seen the Bahraini Government’s announcement that it executed three people. Violent attacks against the police, such as the one that took the lives of the three officers in this case originally are reprehensible, of course, and deserve condemnation. We’ve also seen allegations that the individuals facing execution were victims of torture, and that the evidence used against them in court was extracted, in part, through coerced confessions.
So we’re concerned that these executions occurred at a time of elevated tensions in Bahrain. We continue to call on all parties to show restraint and to contribute to a climate that is conducive for dialogue and reconciliation. And again, we call on the Government of Bahrain to return urgently to the path of reconciliation, and to work collectively to address the aspirations of all Bahrainis. This, we believe, is the best way to marginalize those who support violence and bring greater security and stability to the region.
QUESTION: So your concern is that they would – that the executions took place at a moment of tension?
MR KIRBY: We’re concerned that we’re – as I said, we’re --
QUESTION: But you don’t have a problem with the reports of the – of the forced confessions of --
MR KIRBY: No, I think we have expressed our concerns about these executions and the way in – and way – and the information in which we have about the way these individuals were detained and were coerced into confessions.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: And we have raised those concerns repeatedly with the Bahraini Government.
QUESTION: Right, but it sounded like – maybe I did not hear it correctly, but it sounded as though your main concern was that the execution – not that the executions took place, but that they took place at a time when there was heightened tensions.
MR KIRBY: We are concerned that they took place. We’re certainly also concerned about the context in which they took place.
QUESTION: All right, okay. And then the other one is the closure of the opposition newspaper.
MR KIRBY: Opposition newspaper. You’re talking about Al-Wasat Online?
QUESTION: Mm-hmm, the online version, yeah.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. We are concerned by the decision of the Government of Bahrain to suspend the online version of the independent newspaper, Al-Wasat, as we’ve consistently maintained – and I just talked about this a minute ago – a free press that is allowed to peacefully voice criticisms of the government plays a vital role in inclusive pluralistic governments and societies.
Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Said.
QUESTION: A quick one on Yemen? Sorry, very quickly. The UN yesterday said that 10,000 people have been killed in Yemen since the start of the war, that half the population has no food security, aid is not getting in nor medicine, and so on. Do you have any comment on that? Is the Secretary doing anything?
MR KIRBY: I can’t confirm the UN report of casualties. Clearly, the issue of civilian casualties, the destruction of civilian infrastructure in Yemen has long been a concern. That’s why the Secretary has spent so much time --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- and effort on this issue as well. I can’t confirm those numbers, but obviously, what we – nothing changes about what we want to see there, which is a peaceful resolution to this conflict so that Yemenis don’t have to fear the potential for attacks on them or their infrastructure, and we can get humanitarian aid to so many Yemenis who are still in need.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
(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.
January 10, 2017
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - January 10, 2017
Deputy Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 10, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
GERMANY
AFGHANISTAN
DEPARTMENT
AFGHANISTAN
IRAQ
SYRIA/REGION
TURKEY
SYRIA/REGION
CHINA
NORTH KOREA
INDIA
RUSSIA
TRANSCRIPT:
1:37 p.m. EST
MR TONER: Greetings, everyone. Welcome to the State Department. A couple of things briefly at the top, and then I’ll move on to your questions, if you have any.
First off, I just wanted to note the United States is deeply saddened by the passing of former German President Roman Herzog. Doctor Herzog led Germany with foresight and courage, helping to bring economic modernization and social change to make German reunification successful. His commitment to the rule of law and the pursuit of justice was evident in his approach to facing Germany’s past as well as his long service to Germany’s constitutional court. The United States extends its condolence to Doctor Herzog’s wife – or widow, rather, Alexandra, as well as his two children, as well as the German people.
Also, I wanted to note our strong condemnation of this morning’s terrorist attack on the parliamentary buildings in Kabul that killed 38 Afghans and wounded more than 70 people. An attack on parliamentarians is, frankly, an attack on democracy. We extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of those killed and injured.
We’re also – and you’re probably all of you tracking as well – we’ve also seen reports of an additional attack in Kandahar. We’re still gathering all the facts, looking into it. I don’t have anything to confirm at this point, but as we do get more information in, we’ll obviously share that with you. But in short, I can say that the United States stands strongly with the people of Afghanistan and remains firmly committed to building a secure, peaceful, and prosperous future for Afghanistan.
Please. Hey.
QUESTION: Yes, hey.
MR TONER: Hey. How are you?
QUESTION: Secretary Kerry said today in his remarks that he had not met with Rex Tillerson yet, but he sort of implied that he would soon. Do you have any indication of whether that meeting would be this week or next week, or when that might happen?
MR TONER: I don’t. I think they’re still looking into it and looking at the logistics, frankly. The Secretary’s been very busy himself, and obviously Mr. Tillerson’s in town for his confirmation hearing tomorrow. But obviously, both individuals – well, I can’t speak on behalf of Mr. Tillerson, but I know Secretary Kerry’s very willing and eager to sit down with him and talk more. They’ve spoken once by phone already. So I don’t have anything to confirm. Obviously, when we do, we’ll let you know.
QUESTION: Is there – so there’s nothing on the books right now? No --
MR TONER: Nothing on the books right now. Still trying to figure it out.
QUESTION: Okay. And what would Secretary Kerry hope to accomplish in a meeting with Mr. Tillerson? What does he kind of want to impart?
MR TONER: Sure. I think in – I know Secretary Kerry’s spoken about this. I think it’s just a chance for him to have a one-on-one conversation to consult with him on what he views as the major issues, and to share with him his viewpoints on some of these major issues. I mean, all of you have heard how he feels about some of the major muscle movements of this Administration in terms of foreign policy, whether it’s climate change, whether it’s the Iran nuclear deal. But I think the Secretary certainly would value the opportunity to sit down one on one with Mr. Tillerson and really talk about some of the challenges that he sees going forward.
QUESTION: Is it simply a question of scheduling, or is there some reluctance --
MR TONER: No, I think it’s – I mean, as far as I know, it’s simply a matter of just aligning the two schedules.
QUESTION: But if there isn’t a meeting today, it won’t happen before the nomination hearing?
MR TONER: Without divulging the Secretary’s schedule, he may be out of town for a few days, so they would have to align all of that. We may have more to say about that in – later today, but at this point it’s just trying to align the schedules of two very busy individuals.
QUESTION: Do you have any plans to divulge the Secretary’s schedule?
MR TONER: (Laughter.) As soon as I have something to announce, I will forthrightly announce it.
QUESTION: Thanks very much.
MR TONER: Yeah, no worries.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Afghanistan.
MR TONER: Afghanistan.
QUESTION: I have one on Kerry real quick.
MR TONER: Oh yeah, sure. Of course. We’ll stay on it.
QUESTION: If that’s okay.
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead. Of course, sorry.
QUESTION: He mentioned at the talk that there hasn’t been a lot of high-level exchange between the transition team and the State Department. Is the Secretary worried about that, about the transition, how smoothly it might be going?
MR TONER: I don’t think, John. I think you saw from his response he didn’t seem particularly concerned about it. I think he was just remarking that – which is not uncommon with these kinds of transitions. But as a nominee is confirmed and certainly that process is moving forward – as I said, he’ll have his hearing tomorrow – then the rubber hits the road and transition in earnest can – those kinds of exchanges can begin. I think what we’ve seen thus far – and I’m hesitant to speak in too much detail; I’d refer you to the transition team itself – but what we’ve seen thus far is the transition team trying to get a sense of the breadth and scope of what the State Department does in terms of personnel, in terms of budget, in terms of different bureaus and what activities and programs they’re doing. But I think you’re going to see that obviously intensify over the last 10 days or so – or next 10 days or so.
Yeah, Steve, go ahead.
QUESTION: Following up on your comments about the --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- attacks in Afghanistan, I’m assuming you have no reports of any U.S. personnel wounded in either of these attacks. Looks like we have some dead diplomats in the Kandahar blast and this apparent targeting of parliamentarians and a guest house where there were diplomats. Does this seem to indicate a further escalation in the sophistication of the attackers? And are you more concerned now about the safety of diplomats and NGO workers and others in Afghanistan?
MR TONER: Sure. And I can, I think, without being able to speak to the situation in Kandahar, I believe all chief of mission personnel are accounted for and were not harmed in the Kabul attack. To my knowledge, there was no – there were no – chief of mission personnel, rather, on the ground in Kandahar. But again, if that – any of that changes or as we get updates, we’ll certainly let you know.
And in response to your broader question, I think we’re always concerned. Look, there has been a consistent trend of these kinds of senseless acts of violence on the part of the Taliban. I know they’ve claimed responsibility for the attack in Kabul earlier today and we don’t have any reason, frankly, to question that claim. But we’re always mindful of the security threats not just to chief of mission personnel, not just to diplomats, but certainly to any NGO personnel or individuals who are living and working in Afghanistan. Can’t speak to any change in our posture. That’s something we’re always assessing, always fine-tuning, certainly mindful of these attacks. But it is concerning, to be frank.
QUESTION: The war in Afghanistan’s --
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- gone into its 16th year and for eight of those years, President Obama has been President. He leaves office now. How content is he with the situation on the ground in Afghanistan? Is this in the success column?
MR TONER: I think it’s in the work in progress column and I think the President and indeed the Secretary have spoken frankly about the fact that we don’t want to see Afghanistan slide back into what it was. We – and by “we,” I mean not just the U.S., but the international community, NATO, and its partners on the ground, and indeed, the Afghan Government and the Afghan people have worked far too hard to see those gains slip away. It’s about building the capacity of the Afghan security forces and consolidating their strengths. I mean, ultimately, much as we’re trying to do now in Iraq, we’re trying to build the capacity of the Afghan security forces to determine and to provide for the security of the Afghan people, we’ve also, as you know, worked hard to foster a Afghan-led peace process, which, again, ultimately is, we believe, the way forward, and we encourage that.
Are we always – I don’t think that we can possibly look at it, though, and say mission accomplished. We would certainly not say that. But at the same point, we’re not going to say – we’re not going to encourage any kind of walking away from the situation there.
QUESTION: And you say you don’t want to see it slide back into what it was. Do you mean in the sense of a threat to United States interests outside of Afghanistan because of a base of terror?
MR TONER: I think you could – look, you can make the argument --
QUESTION: Or do you want it to be --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- a stable, nice place for Afghans to live in?
MR TONER: I think the two are mutually reinforcing. I think we don’t – from purely a national security viewpoint, we want to see a strong, stable, democratic Afghanistan that can never again be – provide a safe haven for al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization.
QUESTION: Just to follow up?
MR TONER: Yes, go ahead.
QUESTION: Mark, these attacks are coming just weeks before the new administration comes in. You think somebody behind them or the terrorists are sending some kind of messages to the current Administration – I mean this building – and also to the upcoming administration?
MR TONER: It’s a fair question. I just can’t get in the minds of the kinds of people who carry out these senseless attacks. I don’t know if there’s been – I’d have to look in – whether there’s been an uptick in these attacks coming up to inauguration. I think you’ve still got at least a segment of the Taliban who are dead-set on carrying out terrorism as a way to achieve political gain. And again, it speaks to, I think, the importance of our resolve, of the international community’s resolve, and the Afghan Government’s and security forces’ resolve to not let that happen.
QUESTION: Any message for the upcoming administration as far as these attacks in the region are concerned?
MR TONER: Well, I have no doubt that the – that the incoming administration understands the stakes in Afghanistan. I don’t think any American who’s been around for the last 15 years cannot be aware of the stakes in Afghanistan.
Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Afghanistan?
MR TONER: We’re going to stay in Afghanistan. Okay, let’s finish up.
QUESTION: Okay, so Government of Afghanistan say that these terrorists are able to strike at whenever they want to because of the existence of safe havens – terrorist safe havens inside Pakistan. And do you agree with their view? And secondly, do you acknowledge that even after eight years from this podium U.S. has been insisting Pakistan to close down these safe havens, they continue – that U.S. hasn’t been able to convince Pakistan further?
MR TONER: Well, it continues – so the short answer to your first question is yes, and I think we’ve been very frank and very open about publicly saying to – to Pakistan that it needs to not provide any safe haven to groups that will or are intent on carrying out attacks on Afghanistan. We’ve seen some progress, we’ve seen them take some steps to address these safe havens, but clearly the problem persists and it’s something that’s part of our ongoing conversation, our ongoing dialogue, our ongoing cooperation with Pakistan. We’re willing to help them. I mean, it’s part of – and again, we’ve talked about this before – the realization that Afghans – Afghanistan’s security, Pakistan’s security, indeed India’s security, they’re all interconnected. And so as much as they can work in tandem or work in a partnership on counterterrorism operations, I think it’s for the betterment of the region.
QUESTION: But given that the Pakistan’s reluctance to act against these safe havens, do you think there’s need for the – to review the U.S. policy itself towards Pakistan because it’s not working?
MR TONER: I don’t want to – I’m certainly not going to announce anything. I don’t have anything to – in that regard to speak to except to say that it is an ongoing issue of concern. It’s something we raise regularly with Pakistan’s leadership. Part of it is, one could argue, the difficulty of going after some of these safe havens given the remote areas that they’re in and providing – or ensuring that the Pakistan military has the capabilities to do so, but it’s a persistent problem.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: On Friday, we discussed here the U.S. guarantee of a $1 billion loan to Iraq. And you very helpfully clarified that it was a loan guarantee and not a loan, so thank you for that.
MR TONER: It was Kirby who did that.
QUESTION: Well, I mean in general.
MR TONER: He’s smarter on that stuff than I am. No --
QUESTION: The – the plural you. Okay.
MR TONER: Yes, that’s right. (Laughter.) The royal you.
QUESTION: Yes, because you’re royal folks. Okay.
MR TONER: Go ahead, I’m sorry.
QUESTION: But the second part of the question, there was – there’s a problem in the answer, because it is – and that question, just to remind ourselves, was what assurance was there that the Kurdistan region would receive its fair share. And the answer assumed an agreement on budget sharing, but Iraq’s national assembly – Kirby explained that this budget law had referred to sharing revenues, but there is no real agreement on the budget sharing, because when the national assembly passed that law, it changed the language in such a fashion as – so as the Kurdistan region will receive more revenue if it does not reach an agreement with – does not abide by this agreement with Baghdad. If it just sells oil on its own it’ll get more revenue from that. So why get less money from Baghdad? So there is in reality no agreement about budget sharing, which means that the Kurdistan region won’t see any part of any loan that the Iraqi Government might conclude which the U.S. has guaranteed.
So my question: Are you involved in any effort to resolve this dispute between Baghdad and Erbil and are you hopeful of a resolution?
MR TONER: So these discussions between Baghdad or between – well, frankly, Baghdad and the KRG on budgetary issues are an internal matter – an internal Iraqi matter – and so, I have to refer you to the Government of Iraq. I think we’re encouraged by what we would view as the unprecedented cooperation that’s been shown between Baghdad and the KRG in the fight – in the overall fight against Daesh and the liberation of Mosul, which is ongoing, as you know. And we believe that the sovereign loan guarantee will help the Government of Iraq meet its – the needs of all Iraqis, and by all Iraqis I mean including those in the Kurdistan Region.
So to sum up, internal matter for them to discuss, but we hope that this – as I said, this arrangement would benefit and meet the needs of all Iraqis, including those in Kurdistan Region.
QUESTION: Well, if one had a less benign view of the – what Baghdad might – might do and was not hopeful that it would share the money with the Kurdistan Region, are there other ways to address this problem? Because the need of the Kurdistan Region is not less than that of Baghdad, and maybe something like guaranteeing a loan to – would you consider guaranteeing a loan to Erbil just like you did to Baghdad?
MR TONER: I don’t think we’re at that point. I don’t think that’s something we’re necessarily looking at. Look, I mean, as I said, we’ve signed this loan. We believe it should be to the benefit of all Iraqis, and that includes the citizens or the people of the Kurdistan Region. But as you well know, the United States has also taken measures to help the Kurdistan Regional Government and the people there. I think we’ve provided over $1 billion in humanitarian emergency assistance through the – our Bureau of Population, Migration, and Resource – or Refugees, rather. And the majority of those funds have gone to the Kurdistan Region.
But we’re not talking about another loan guarantee at this point that I’m aware of. We expect this to be resolved internally.
QUESTION: Well, let me formulate – last way of formulating it.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Because, as the United States did guarantee this loan, assuming that Baghdad will, in fact, get a considerable loan from someplace guaranteed by the United States, is it your intent to use your influence with Baghdad to make sure that that money is also shared with the Kurdistan Region?
MR TONER: Well, as you note, it is an – it is a loan, and that does give us some degree of influence on how it’s used. I think I would just stay where I was, which is I thought I was very clear on the fact that we believe that this money should be shared and should be available to all Iraqis, and that includes the Kurdistan Region. Okay? I’ll stop there.
Please, sir.
QUESTION: On Syria?
MR TONER: Yeah, please. Yeah.
QUESTION: During yesterday’s briefing on the context of political transition in Syria, Kirby said that it’s a UN-led process, and opposition and the regime begin to have a discussion about what a political transition can look like in Syria. I was wondering where PYD stands for State Department in this process.
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Like, do you consider PYD as a part of opposition? And also if State Department would support PYD to take part in any meeting organized by UN-led process.
MR TONER: Okay. Sorry, so just to make sure I heard – so you’re talking about how the PYD would fit into any kind of a political process.
QUESTION: If it’s opposition and the regime --
MR TONER: Yes, of course. And then the other question was whether we would participate in that.
QUESTION: Whether you would support PYD taking part --
MR TONER: -- if we would support --
QUESTION: -- in this process.
MR TONER: Ah-ha, of course. I see. Well, look, first of all, as we’ve said very often over many, many, frankly, years, we believe that a UN-sponsored political solution is the only way to resolve the conflict in Syria and end the now six-year-old war there. And our position has not changed. So we would like nothing more than to see this political negotiations back up and running in Geneva, because ultimately, as I said, that’s what’s going to, we believe, lead to some kind of process and political transition that is in the interests of the Syrian people.
Now, who participates in that, that’s really for the groups involved and the Syrian people to determine. What our position has been, broadly speaking and addressing your specific question, is that the Syrian Kurds – that this process has to include all Syrians, and that includes the Syrian Kurds.
QUESTION: So you are saying the PYD can take part on the table?
MR TONER: At some point, they have to be a part of this process, is our consideration.
QUESTION: And one more question.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: Washington Post published an article couple days ago on training program of Syrian Democratic Forces.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: The article points that during the training program, recruits must learn the ideology of Abdullah Ocalan, who is the leader of the terrorist group PKK. I would like to know if State Department aware of how these classes on this training program have been designed.
MR TONER: Sure. So I’m not aware of the – I’m aware that the – of the article, and the different vignettes or stories conveyed in it. I can’t speak to whether in fact that’s the case or not. I can’t verify that. What I can say is – with regard to the question of whether we provide support to the Kurdish military groups, the YPG and the PYD, we provide some support, but it’s tactical support to Syrian Democratic Forces, and that’s focused on defeating Daesh – nothing else.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: But the article also points that during the classes, the American advisers also present the same. So basically, the American advisers that are being sent by the Washington also takes part in the class, during the class.
MR TONER: Well, again, what I can say is that we do have advisers on the ground. We’ve talked about that before, and they are working – I said, as providing support, some of it tactical support, for these different groups who have been very effective at going after Daesh and destroying it and dislodging it from the territory it’s holding in northern Syria. But – and I think Kirby was very clear on this the other day – we regard the PKK as a foreign terrorist organization, and we support Turkey in its efforts to confront that organization. And we strongly condemn the PKK’s actions to harm or kill Turkish security forces.
QUESTION: One last one.
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Have you received any report from these advisers that during the classes, very strong anti-Turkish rhetoric is used in these training programs? Have you received such reports?
MR TONER: I have not. I’m not aware of it personally. I just don’t have that sense of it. Again, I think it’s important, and I just want to make very clear that – because – and it’s not just some of the things in this article, but other things we’ve been seeing circulating – we do not provide weaponry, weapons to the YPG. We provide them with tactical support, air support for some of their operations. We do that out of our belief that they are a very capable fighting force, as are other Syrian groups, like the Syrian Arabs and the Syrian Turkmen, in going after ISIL and going after Daesh. There is no other secondary reason for any kind of support we would offer these groups. And we’re mindful – sorry, just to finish – and we’re mindful of the sensitivities. Obviously, we’re mindful of Turkey’s concerns about this group. Sorry, go ahead.
QUESTION: And no weapon, but is State Department also aware of the curriculum of these training programs, I mean, what’s being taught to recruits?
MR TONER: I’m sorry, one more – one last time?
QUESTION: I was wondering if State Department aware of the curriculum, the schedule of these training programs, what’s being taught to the --
MR TONER: I wouldn’t be able to speak to that. I just don’t know. It might be a question better directed to the Department of Defense.
QUESTION: Follow-up?
MR TONER: I’ll get to you. Yeah. I’ll get to you, I’ll get to you. Yeah, please.
QUESTION: Thank you. Follow-up. Few months ago, Secretary of Defense, Mr. Carter, was on the Hill. And he was basically telling I think Senator Graham that U.S. ended giving weaponry support to Syrian Kurds. Do you think there is some --
MR TONER: No, I’m sorry. I don’t have his testimony in front of me. I think what we have done is we’ve provided equipment to some of the vetted Syrian Arab elements of the Syrian Democratic Forces. And that equipment has included ammunition, other tactical equipment, to assist in their counter-Daesh operations. But those are vetted Syrian Arab groups. We’ve not provided that I’m aware of any military hardware of weaponry to Kurdish forces.
QUESTION: On Syria. Turkish forces and Turkey-backed forces are still sieging al-Bab.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: It has been I think four weeks now. Do you have any update on the coordination with the Turkish forces around --
MR TONER: Sure. I do – actually, a little bit more detail I think I can provide. As you know and you noted, we have been supporting Turkish operations in northern Syria to help secure its border, to help counter the flow of foreign fighters, and that’s been pretty successful. In fact, the Secretary was citing this in his remarks earlier today. And that’s been through airstrikes, intel – critical intelligence – and we’ve also partnered with Turkish forces on the ground. But specifically with regard to al-Bab, the coalition has now provided intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance support – what we call ISR support – to Turkish – to our Turkish partners, but to Turkish forces. And we’re poised now to provide additional support as these operations continue.
We’re consulting with our Turkish counterparts on this, how to do it on a regular basis and to maximize, I guess, the overall effect of our operations to counter ISIL on as many fronts as possible, because that’s part of it. We want to put as much pressure as we can collectively on Daesh or on ISIL to ensure their rapid military defeat. So we’re committed to defeating ISIL in al-Bab and helping support Turkey and Turkish forces as they conduct those operations.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Final question on Turkey: There’s a – these wide-ranging constitution changes right now are being debated at the parliament. I think so far one or two articles passed, and there is a criticism that this is basically changing the system but also the regime of the country, especially on the separation of powers. What’s your view on those changes?
MR TONER: I would say that obviously we’re watching it closely as a partner and as an ally of Turkey’s, but I’m not going to wade into what is an internal matter between the Turkish parliament and the people to decide.
QUESTION: A question about (inaudible)?
QUESTION: But if the --
MR TONER: Sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: The criticism is that basically the regime change in Turkey – the democracy is about values, and as far as we know, the partnership between Turkey and U.S. and NATO and the Western community is based on also the values. If these changes are changing and basically making a different country, isn’t that something about universal values and --
MR TONER: I mean, sure, and we’ve talked about this before. The value of Turkey’s democracy, as we’ve said, matters to us, and I think it matters to the Turkish people, and we’re mindful of that. And I also don’t want to – we don’t want to attempt to sway what is a democratic process right now, a debate ongoing in the country, but of course we’re mindful of Turkey’s democratic values and our desire to see those maintained.
Please, go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah, just to follow up on the --
MR TONER: Yeah, sure.
QUESTION: -- what you were saying before about the support for the Kurdish fighters and the SDF.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: If the PYD is not the PKK, why won’t you arm them? You’re arming the --
MR TONER: It’s a fair question.
QUESTION: You’re arming the Arab elements of the SDF --
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: -- but the majority are Kurds. You’re not arming them --
MR TONER: It’s a fair question.
QUESTION: -- so you must have concerns about them.
MR TONER: Sure, sure. Sure, sure. Well, a couple of points, but I think overall – and we’ve said this all along – is that while we believe that the focus of the YPD is on defeating Daesh, and we’re helping them as we – as they take that on, as I said, through tactical support, we’re also mindful of others’ views – and by “others” I mean the Turkish Government’s viewpoint – and the sensitivities around the YPD.
QUESTION: An additional follow-up to that?
MR TONER: Of course. Please. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: Yeah. You answered the question earlier about the PYD involvement in the Syrian political process, and you said there needs to be all Syrians involved in this political process --
MR TONER: Yes.
QUESTION: -- including the PYD. Are you aware or what’s the position of other members of the Syrian support group, like Turkey, Iran, Russia on that issue of PYD representation? Is it the same or is it different?
MR TONER: I don’t want to speak on behalf of or on the part of other members of the ISSG. Look, they weren’t part of this vetted Syrian opposition, moderate opposition that was put forward. You remember early on in the ISSG process there was this group that was put forward. But I think it’s always been our consideration – and, frankly, it’s just kind of, if nothing else, a realistic assessment of the fact that the YPG is – YPD, rather – is a force on the ground, is a representative group, and their voice will need to be heard in any kind of long-term solution to the situation in Syria. And it’s in that spirit that we say that if there’s going to be…a political process that leads to a political transition, a more democratic one, that’s going to have to be accepted by all of the Syrian people.
QUESTION: But have you discussed this with any of the other members of the ISSG yet?
MR TONER: I mean, I – I can imagine it has been talked about, yes.
QUESTION: Mark, can you --
MR TONER: Yeah, please.
QUESTION: (Inaudible.)
QUESTION: -- Asia, please?
MR TONER: Sure, sure.
QUESTION: Yes.
MR TONER: No hurry. I’m here all week. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: (Inaudible.) On the China, South Korea, Japan.
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: And over 10 of Chinese military aircraft infiltrated the Air Defense Identification Zone of South Korea and Japan yesterday on violation of Chinese Government. How do you comment on this?
MR TONER: On – I’m sorry, what were you talking about? The --
QUESTION: Chinese military aircraft, they infiltrate nation’s – the Air Defense Identification Zones of South Korea and Japan yesterday.
MR TONER: Yeah, I think we’ve seen reports about this. I don’t have any particular comment on it. Obviously, we’d have to look more into the incident and to determine who was at fault.
QUESTION: Do you think that this is the military demonstration against U.S., maybe China --
MR TONER: Do I think it’s what? A Chinese --
QUESTION: Do you think, yeah, this is a Chinese military demonstration against the United States and Japan?
MR TONER: Again, I’d have to look more into the incident to find out what exactly happened. Again, I’m aware of reports. Look, I mean, I would hope not. As we’ve been very clear about our operations in the Pacific, we believe in freedom of navigation, we believe in the right for any government to fly, sail, whatever, in international waters, but we also don’t want to see any kind of escalation of tensions in the region. In fact, just the opposite; we want to work with all parties and all governments in the region to try to de-escalate and create mechanisms by which any kind of assertion of territorial aggression or whatever would be determined through a diplomatic process.
QUESTION: Why United States didn’t look at it clearly? Because this is very serious issue because China is actually --
MR TONER: Again, I just don’t have – I apologize, I just don’t have details in front of me. I’m aware of it; I just don’t have any reaction for you. If we do, I’ll let you know, okay?
QUESTION: All right.
QUESTION: May I have another follow-up?
MR TONER: Of course.
QUESTION: Yeah. There’s also another report said that the Chinese aircraft carrier is heading back to its base, but sailing through, passing through, the Taiwan Strait. Are you aware of it?
MR TONER: You’re talking about the aircraft carrier that --
QUESTION: Yes, the Liaoning.
MR TONER: Yeah. Again, I’m not particularly aware of that. I would just almost say the same thing, which is that the United States recognizes the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea and the airspace that’s guaranteed to all countries in accordance with international law. So provided they’re in accordance with those laws and operating within international waters, we wouldn’t have a problem.
QUESTION: Do you see this operation as escalating or de-escalating tensions?
MR TONER: As I said, I hope not. Part of our overall strategy within that area of the Pacific and Asia is to try to de-escalate, is to – we want to, as I said, create mechanisms for governments, for countries, to talk through some of these issues that they have with – regarding claims and whatever, and to try to create, as I said, diplomatic mechanisms to deal with these issues. We certainly don’t want to see shows of force or any kind of escalation.
QUESTION: Is Taiwan Strait sort of the international sea, from your perspective?
MR TONER: I’m not sure.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR TONER: Yeah. Please, yeah.
QUESTION: One final on North Korea.
MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: At the event this morning that Secretary Kerry spoke at, former Secretary of State Albright, talking about North Korea, referred to Kim Jong-un as, quote, “a nutcase.” How does the current Administration characterize the North Korean leader?
MR TONER: I’ll refrain from that kind of colorful assessment, but I think, obviously, we’re very concerned about both the North Korean leader’s behavior, but the behavior of his regime writ large, its intent on pursuing nuclear capabilities that is creating instability, to put it mildly, in the region, and raising the concerns – legitimate concerns of not just along the Korean Peninsula, but among other countries, notably China, indeed the U.S., Japan, and others. And so we’re – it’s one of those issues that, when this Administration transitions to the new administration, is going to remain a serious concern and a serious challenge that we need to address.
QUESTION: India.
QUESTION: No, one more on North Korea.
MR TONER: Yeah, sure, go ahead.
QUESTION: North Korean high-ranking officials, defectors – his name is Thae Yong Ho – recently, he confessioned and have also a news conference in South Korea. He said the Six-Party Talks is not working for the – remove – give up North Korean nuclear weapons. Do you think we need still Six-Party Talks? Is --
MR TONER: Do I think we need to --
QUESTION: Six-Party Talks for the result of the nuclear --
MR TONER: I’m sorry, just the nut of your question: You’re saying do I think we need to move beyond that --
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR TONER: -- or to leave it behind as a – as kind of a --
QUESTION: For – to Six-Party Talks --
MR TONER: Yeah. I don’t think any – I don’t think we’re quite there yet. I don’t think we’re ready to do that. I think that we’re trying to address the challenge of North Korea along multiple lines of effort, one of which, as you know, is sanctions. We’ve now got the most rigorous sanctions regime in place against North Korea ever, but as we often say too, it’s – they’re only as strong as they are implemented, and so that’s what we’re working specifically with China to address, but with all countries so that these very strong sanctions – they feel the pinch, so to speak.
We’re still hoping – the Six-Party Talks are a mechanism that could potentially bring North Korea back into discussions about its – addressing international concerns about its nuclear program. So I don’t want to claim that structure as – is dead and needs to be shelved; far from it. But I think – and then again, of course, providing for the security of our allies and partners in the region and sending a clear message that we’re committed to providing that security. I think all of these efforts are worth pursuing. Which of them may ultimately turn North Korea around and convince the regime that it’s in its interest to address the international community’s concerns, I can’t say.
QUESTION: He also said that Kim Jong-un is the nuclear weapon, so – Kim Jong-un never give up nuclear weapons, never give up to develop the nuclear weapons.
MR TONER: I mean, again, I just – we’re very concerned about North Korea’s bad behavior and --
QUESTION: Therefore we have wasting time for the Six-Party Talks because we give them – they have plenty of time to develop nuclear weapons since 1993.
MR TONER: Well, again, I think we’re – I wouldn’t say we’re wasting time. We’re looking at a variety of ways to make them see the light, but thus far, we’ve been unsuccessful. I agree.
QUESTION: India?
MR TONER: Sure.
QUESTION: Mark, Madam Nisha Desai is in India meeting with high-level Indian officials, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the President of India Mukherjee. And she praised the U.S.-India relations and also, because of her efforts and hard work as far as relations between U.S.-India, she was today – actually, India time – confirmed or awarded for the highest award anybody can receive under the administration.
And also, yesterday, at the Indian embassy, Ambassador Sarna and the panelists, they praised the Indian and U.S. relations and also what they said, that Rich – Ambassador Richard Verma also doing a great job. My question here: Any comments as far as her award from the Indian Government and also her efforts or the Ambassador Verma’s efforts? And where do we go from here, after two weeks, as far as U.S.-India relations are concerned?
MR TONER: I’m sorry. Who received the award? The person – I didn’t hear the first --
QUESTION: Madam Nisha Desai, Nisha Biswal.
MR TONER: Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Look, I mean, it’s – that’s wonderful that she was given that award. I think that U.S.-India relations have been strengthened throughout these past eight years of the Obama Administration. It’s obviously a key – a core relationship for the United States. And I think in terms of where that relationship goes, the sky’s the limit, both economically, security, what have you. I think Ambassador Verma’s done a tremendous job as well. And I think the new administration was clearly recognizing – you’ve even seen some comments from the president-elect – of the importance that India plays not just in the region but in the global mix. And as I said, it’s resource-rich. It’s playing an outsized role in global issues. And so I think we’re going to continue to work hard to strengthen that relationship going forward, no matter who’s president.
QUESTION: And finally --
MR TONER: Yeah. Let’s --
QUESTION: -- Ambassador Verma also, in his end of the year or review of the year relations, also he emphasized how important the two countries have gone during this Administration and during his leadership at the U.S. Embassy in India. Any word for him or his leadership?
MR TONER: As I said, I know Richard. He’s a very good man and a very good ambassador. And I can’t think of anyone who could do a better job at strengthening that bilateral relationship.
Please, David.
QUESTION: Yesterday you added a number of names to the Magnitsky list of sanctions.
MR TONER: Yeah.
QUESTION: The Russians, obviously, protested angrily. The – I don’t know whether you want to counter-protest their protest, but two of the names that you – on the list, Mr. Lugavoi and Mr. Kovtun, were accused by the British Government of having poisoned Mr. Litvinenko, a freelance former spy in London 10 years ago. The British inquiry also named the man who ordered – or it said approved of the assassination – Mr. Vladimir Putin. Was any discussion made about putting Mr. Putin’s name on the Magnitsky list? This is your last chance. (Laughter.)
MR TONER: So as with all designations, the U.S. Government relies on multiple credible sources of information. Look, I think – how will I put this? – I think we’ll continue to examine this and other cases involving gross violations of human rights, determine whether we have any – enough sufficient information indicating that other individuals linked to these cases meet the Magnitsky Act’s criteria.
QUESTION: But they’re acting on behalf of a Russian Government, which has --
MR TONER: I understand. I think I’ll leave it there. I think we’re going to continue to look hard at – and as you noted, we did publish I think five new individuals added to the list yesterday.
QUESTION: And that’s like an annual update, isn’t it?
MR TONER: It is. It is.
QUESTION: So that’s the last --
MR TONER: It is.
QUESTION: -- batch that this Administration will put on.
MR TONER: It is. It is. It is. I mean, I’m tempted to be – to respond to the first aspect of your question, which was – you had mentioned – well, you had mentioned the Russian Government’s – I think the Kremlin’s --
QUESTION: And the individuals themselves in Moscow.
MR TONER: -- indignation about the state of U.S.-Russia relations and the kind of implication that we’re just doing this, striking out at Russia, to further harm U.S.-Russian relations. And frankly, I find this kind of like look back in sorrow act and rhetoric a little bit overblown and hard to stomach. I mean, we’re carrying out sanctions – the Magnitsky Act, the actions we took a week ago, two weeks ago, regarding Russia’s cyberattack on U.S. electoral processes and continued harassment of our diplomats, and then going back further, the sanctions that we have about – or have still in place regarding Ukraine and Crimea are all taken for a reason. And it’s not just to poke a stick at Russia. It’s meant to draw attention to some of their actions that we believe run counter to international law and the international community’s standards. And we’re not backing away from any of those actions that we’ve taken. And in fact, it’s been Russia that has taken actions specifically that have damaged bilateral relations, and we talked a little bit about them when we took – when we announced some of the actions two weeks ago – that they’ve closed down all of our American spaces; they’ve harassed our diplomats; they’ve shut down some of our bilateral exchanges, like the Flex Program, which was a hugely successful high school student exchange program, for no reason other than, I think, just to strike back.
And so I don’t want to overplay this or whatever, but – or overstate this, but I think it’s a bit hard to listen to some of the rhetoric that we’ve heard from various Russian spokespeople about our intentions here. Our intentions, as I said, are to use these sanctions, to use some of these actions, to call attention to Russia’s bad behavior but also to respond to Russia’s aggressive actions in the cyber area and against our diplomats. So I’ll leave it there.
Thanks, guys.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:24 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.
January 9, 2017
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - January 9, 2017
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 9, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
SECRETARY KERRY SCHEDULE
PORTUGAL
MEXICO
IRAN
TAIWAN
NORTH KOREA
PAKISTAN
SOUTH KOREA/JAPAN
SYRIA
RUSSIA
LGBT
SYRIA
IRAQ/TURKEY
TURKEY
UNITED KINGDOM
TRANSCRIPT:
2:05 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Hey everybody.
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: Hello, Kirby.
QUESTION: Good afternoon.
MR KIRBY: Good afternoon. All right, couple things to go through at the top if you’ll bear with me. Some – some logistics, that kind of thing. As you know, the Secretary is up north today. He went to Cambridge, Massachusetts and delivered a speech at MIT on climate change innovation and the global transition to a clean energy future. Following that, he was joined by the deputy secretary and participated in a roundtable discussion with members of MIT and policy experts on the future of work. And as I noted last week, that discussion was focused on how rapid advances in technological innovation can impact the future of jobs and transform economies. The roundtable was part of our Innovation Forum here at the State Department, which convenes senior policy makers and industry experts for discussions on issues at the intersection of foreign policy and innovation.
He also will be participating in some open press events tomorrow that I want to highlight for you in Washington and in Annapolis. First, the Secretary will lead off the U.S. Institute of Peace’s Passing the Baton 2017: America’s Role in the World event at 9:30 tomorrow morning, where he’ll be discussing our nation’s top foreign policy priorities that – under the Obama Administration and, of course, challenges that could lead into the next administration. Judy Woodruff from PBS’s NewsHour will be moderating his discussion in front of the audience. That’s an open press event.
Then later in the day, a little after noon, he will go to the Naval Academy in Annapolis, where he will deliver an address to midshipmen, faculty, and staff at the Naval Academy. He’ll be reflecting on his time in the Navy and what his Navy service – how that impacted his public service throughout his life as well as his views on foreign policy. And I suspect he’ll also talk about some of the challenges that the United States will continue to face in global leadership going forward.
And then finally, tomorrow night the Secretary will be joined by former Secretaries of State Albright, Colin Powell, and Hillary Clinton as they deliver all remarks – as they all deliver remarks at a reception celebrating the completion of the construction of the U.S. Diplomacy Center’s main pavilion. So if you go down on 21st Street, you’ve probably seen that structure is now done. And they’ll be sort of formally opening that or commemorating the end of the construction. The Diplomacy Center’s not open for business yet; there’s still quite a bit of work on exhibit design and construction that needs to be done. This is just marking the formal completion of the construction of the main pavilion. And that too will be an open press event. As I said, each former secretary, as well as the Secretary himself, will have a chance to say a few words.
On Portugal. The United States is saddened to hear of the death of former Portuguese president and prime minister Mario Soares, a lifelong champion of human rights, self-determination, and democracy. Soares endured years of imprisonment and exile, but throughout his lengthy career remained committed to fighting for the people of Portugal. Portugal and the United States share a close and longstanding relationship, and we extend our deepest condolences to the family and loved ones of Mr. Soares as well as to the people of Portugal.
And then finally, on Mexico, because I know that all of you have been tracking this over the weekend and I just want to get a couple of comments out of the way at the top. As you know, the Secretary issued a statement yesterday on the arrest of a suspect in the heinous attack against our Foreign Service officer colleague in Guadalajara. Always and continually the safety and security of U.S. citizens and our own diplomatic staff overseas are among our highest priorities. Our thoughts and prayers are with him and his family, and we’re wishing him, obviously, a speedy recovery. Given that it’s an ongoing investigation and it’s now being taken up by the FBI, I do not have additional information on the motive, I cannot provide any more information about the victim due to privacy concerns. I’m simply not going to be able to give you much more information on this today. We continue to – obviously, to monitor as best we can the medical condition of our consular officer – I’m sorry, our Foreign Service officer colleague. And if and when there is more information that we can provide, we’ll do that. But right now it is an active, ongoing investigation by the FBI.
So with that, Matt.
QUESTION: Just before we get into substance, I want to ask just a logistical – did you say what time that event was tomorrow evening?
MR KIRBY: I don’t --
QUESTION: And if you didn’t, can you say what time --
MR KIRBY: 5:30 p.m.
QUESTION: Okay, and then --
MR KIRBY: I did say.
QUESTION: You did? Okay.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Sorry, I missed it. And then, do you know, were the other living former secretaries of state invited as well?
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: And they were unable to attend for some reason?
MR KIRBY: Yes. And I understand, it was scheduling concerns.
QUESTION: So Kissinger --
MR KIRBY: Yep.
QUESTION: -- Rice --
MR KIRBY: Every living --
QUESTION: -- they were all – what, Shultz --
MR KIRBY: -- former secretary of state was invited --
QUESTION: Okay. And --
MR KIRBY: -- and not everybody is able to make it.
QUESTION: Okay. All right. I’ve got a – unless someone has more on that – I’ve got a couple things on Iran, if I could.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: The first has to do with the passing away of the former Iranian President Rafsanjani. Over the weekend, there was a comment attributable on background to U.S. or a State Department official offering condolences for his passing. Do you – can you put that on the record for us?
MR KIRBY: Sure. I mean, former President Rafsanjani has been – or was, excuse me – a prominent figure throughout the history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and we do extend our condolences to his family and to his loved ones.
QUESTION: So there have been some people who are highly critical of the Administration on Iran policy in general, but also on this specifically, taking issue or questioning, rather, the appropriateness of offering condolences to Mr. Rafsanjani given activities that Iran was involved in in terms of supporting terrorism back when he was in charge and also in his roles in the Iranian parliament. What do you have to say about that?
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I – no question, as I said, he was a prominent figure, and the history’s complicated. We’re not going to debate the history, and I don’t think it’s valuable for us to try to comment on the potential internal implications of his death, of the potential impact on Iran today. He was consequential in terms of the recent history of Iran and we send our condolences to the family and loved ones. And whatever there is to say about his complicated history, you’re still dealing with a family that’s dealing with grief and dealing with a loss, and so it’s not inappropriate for us to simply offer our thoughts to a family that’s grieving right now.
QUESTION: Okay, but – but, I mean, this is a guy who when he was in senior leadership positions repeatedly did and said things that this --
MR KIRBY: Absolutely.
QUESTION: -- that this government, whether this Administration or previous administrations --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Sure.
QUESTION: -- have adamantly rejected – his position on Israel, for example – and condemned.
MR KIRBY: Sure. Sure. Sure. Absolutely.
QUESTION: And so you don’t see any – you --
MR KIRBY: But should we – so we should hold the family and loved ones accountable for things that he did in his past that we didn’t like? I mean, the man died; we offered condolences to the family. We went through this, I think, when Fidel Castro passed too. I mean, no question – another individual with a history of actions and decisions and policies and rhetoric that we didn’t approve of in many, many ways, but you still have a family that’s grieving. And again, I don’t think we should make more of this than needs to be made. We offered our condolences, thoughts, and prayers to the family, and we think that’s appropriate.
QUESTION: All right. Secondly, on this incident that happened on the Strait of Hormuz with the Navy – and I realize this is a Pentagon thing or a Navy thing altogether, but I’m just wondering – previous incidences involving the U.S. Navy and Iranian patrol boats has – have drawn some kind – some diplomatic intervention, as it – shall we say. And I’m just wondering if that has happened in this case.
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any specific intervention on the State Department’s behalf with respect to this recent incident.
QUESTION: Or plans to? Because, I mean, one of the side benefits of the Iran deal --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- which has been talked about is this channel between --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- Secretary Kerry and Foreign Minister Zarif. That has not been or was not contemplated to be used in this case to tell the Iranians to knock it off?
MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t rule anything out right at this point. I’m not aware of any plans for the Secretary to intervene at this point, but I certainly would not rule anything out. I just know that there’s been no communication on a diplomatic front on this issue, and I think the Pentagon has obviously spoken to the incident itself.
QUESTION: Okay. And then lastly on Iran, you probably have seen a story that my colleague wrote out of Vienna about the P5+1 procurement committee approving the shipment of 116 metric tons of natural uranium --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- to Iran. People look at this and wonder exactly why it is that this kind of a shipment would be approved. Do you know what it’s for and why it was approved?
MR KIRBY: Well – so a couple of thoughts there, Matt. I think you know that I’m unable to speak about specific proposals that are subject to the procurement working group confidentiality, so I – there’s a limit here. However, and more generally, the JCPOA does permit Iran to import natural uranium, and such transactions were always anticipated throughout the process of working towards the deal. Natural uranium is an internationally traded commodity. It’s not usable in its natural form for building a nuclear weapon. Iran can use any natural uranium it acquires only within the other limitations of JCPOA, so the – all the limits of the JCPOA still are in place. So I think – and you know this – for example, they cannot have more than 300 kilograms of enriched material, and it cannot enrich that material to a level more than 3.67 percent. And again, natural uranium can – is not in its natural form usable. Any natural uranium that would be transferred to Iran would still remain subject to the enhanced verification and transparency measures of the JCPOA and under the terms of that arrangement for 25 years.
QUESTION: Yeah, but – okay, which is fine. So if it’s not usable, why would they want it?
MR KIRBY: Well, again, they’re allowed to bring in natural uranium. I would let – I can’t – sorry, there’s – I cannot confirm these reports. I think you know that. So – but there’s no prohibition on bringing in natural uranium. They are still – regardless of that, they are still held to all the limitations of the Iran deal. That doesn’t change. And we still have the most robust inspection regime in place.
Without confirming this procurement, I’d refer you to Iranian authorities for discussion of whatever desire they might have to bring in natural uranium. But if you’re going to have a civil nuclear power program, you can see that there might be a need for a product like that. But again, I can’t speak to it specifically.
QUESTION: Well, is it not correct, though, that after – or tell me, I mean, if they hold onto this, if they store it away for 25 years, can they then not take this 116 tons and then do whatever they want with it?
MR KIRBY: Well, the – first of all, I really hate – I hate hypotheticals --
QUESTION: Or whatever the quantity --
MR KIRBY: -- particularly the ones that go out two and a half decades from now, but --
QUESTION: Look, the – your whole point is that don’t worry, this is going to be subject to inspection and verification --
MR KIRBY: Which – which --
QUESTION: -- under the JCPOA, but those – that expires at some point.
MR KIRBY: There are – there are --
QUESTION: So after those limitations expire, is it not correct that they could do whatever they want with it?
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate one way or another here about something that --
QUESTION: I don't know that --
MR KIRBY: -- may or may not happen 25 years from now, Matt. There’s a strong inspection regime in place --
QUESTION: Now.
MR KIRBY: -- to – and for well into the future to prevent Iran from --
QUESTION: For 25 years.
MR KIRBY: -- to prevent Iran from ever being able to achieve a nuclear weapon, and that’s on page – by the way, not 25 years. The deal says Iran will never achieve nuclear weapons capability, but let’s get beyond that. I’m not going to speculate about what might or might not happen 25 years from now.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: I just don’t think that’s a useful exercise.
QUESTION: Well, it may not be a useful exercise for you, but I mean, if you’re looking at this from the perspective of other countries in the region – Gulf, Arab countries – I mean, 25 years isn’t that long, is it not?
MR KIRBY: Well, for you and me, it might --
QUESTION: It might be for us.
MR KIRBY: It might be for us.
QUESTION: But we’re talking about --
MR KIRBY: Look, I --
QUESTION: -- generations of --
MR KIRBY: Matt, I do understand where the question’s going. There’s no prohibition under the deal now for them to bring this material in in its natural form. It cannot be enriched – it cannot be used, I’m sorry, for a weapon. There is a very strong inspection regime in place for a very long time. And oh, by the way, in the deal, Iran said they would never achieve nuclear weapons capability. So I can’t – I don’t think either of us can predict what things are going to look like 20 years from now or 25 years from now or what the inspection regime continues to find and continues to be able to see 25 years from now. But we’re confident that the deal makes the region safer, makes our allies and partners safer, will prevent Iran from achieving a nuclear weapons capability. And I think that’s probably the best place to leave it.
QUESTION: John?
QUESTION: Kirby --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: The --
QUESTION: You’re going to ask on the same thing?
QUESTION: Yes, on the same thing, yeah. So they’re permitted to bring in natural uranium, as you say, but the Associated Press story that Matt referenced seemed to suggest that this particular batch was – has been permitted by some kind of decision. Now, without confirming that, as you say you can’t --
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: -- do they have to inform their partners in the JCPOA when they do bring in natural uranium?
MR KIRBY: I’m not – I’m going to have to take the question. I don’t know. As – and again, I want to be clear: I cannot confirm the press reporting on this and I’m not going to speak about the working group’s – anything that would violate the working group’s confidentiality. But as a matter of procedure, I’d have to ask. I don’t know. Okay?
Lesley.
QUESTION: Can I change the subject to Taiwan?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So I don’t know if you’ve commented on it over the weekend – I don’t think I saw anything – the Taiwanese president met the Republican lawmakers during a stopover on Sunday. Has there been any formal complaint by the Chinese on this? There was a report in a Chinese state tabloid that’s warning the next administration about it, but as of today, was there any kind of formal --
MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: -- complaint of it?
MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: So --
QUESTION: And how do you see that visit? I mean, is it – those discussions, does it complicate anything in the last two weeks?
MR KIRBY: Well, so, a couple of things. First of all, nothing’s changed about the “one China” policy or the United States support for it. Number two, the president’s transit through the United States is based on a longstanding U.S. practice. It’s consistent with the unofficial nature of our relations with Taiwan. These are undertaken, of course – I think I talked about this Friday – out of consideration for the comfort of the traveler, safety, convenience, that kind of thing. But there’s no change to the “one China” policy.
Now, as for discussions that the president had, I would let those who were party to those discussions speak to them in terms of content. We had no role. We did not – we didn’t encourage, we did not establish, we did not organize those discussions. But again, this was unofficial transit for safety and comfort only, and again, nothing’s changed about the “one China” policy.
QUESTION: And nothing’s complicated your life?
MR KIRBY: Nothing has changed about the “one China” policy.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: And again, I think the participants in those discussions should speak to what was discussed.
Janne.
QUESTION: Thank you, John. On North Korea, are you ready? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I’m always ready for questions about North Korea from you, Janne. I mean, but I’m – as you rightly pointed out Friday – (laughter) – I’m not informed, so I’ll do the best I can.
QUESTION: All right. She said you’re not an expert.
MR KIRBY: She’s – that’s right, she said I’m not an expert.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. Okay. North Korea announced the second time – Kim Jong-un announced the second time this year that North Korea will soon launch the ICBM – intercontinental ballistic missile – anywhere, anytime. What – do you have any comment on this?
MR KIRBY: It would be exactly the same thing that we have said when they have made these sorts of provocative statements in the past. I mean, now is the time – and we’re well past time for Pyongyang to prove that they’re willing and able to return to the Six-Party Talk process and to stop their provocative moves, their destabilizing moves to develop – continue to develop ballistic missile capabilities as well as a nuclear program. And as we’ve said before, the – that the entire international community is aligned against them in terms of exerting more pressure. We’ll – we take his comments seriously. We have to. Regrettably, we have to. But I’m not going to get into our own estimate or assessment of where he might be with respect to progress on this most recent threat.
QUESTION: Is the United States ready to shut down North Korean ICBM this time?
MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate about future tactical developments one way or the other. I would just tell you, as I said last week, that in addition to the international pressure being applied through a very robust sanctions regime, and the fact that we’re not ruling out additional sanctions if required through the UN, that the United States maintains a significant deterrent capability militarily in the region. That’s all been part and parcel of the Asia Pacific rebalance. And we’re confident that we have the capabilities in the Asia Pacific region to protect our interests.
QUESTION: But a launch of North Korean ICBM is a threat to South Korea and United States. So hopefully U.S. have military action to – this time, so --
MR KIRBY: Well, Janne, you know better than probably anybody in this room that when I say “our interests,” I also mean the significant interests and commitments that we have on the peninsula itself through a rock-solid defense alliance with the Republic of Korea. That hasn’t changed. And we have – still have a very significant military presence there on the peninsula, all of which is designed to act as a deterrent. But also if – and nobody wants to see this come into open conflict – but of course to be ready should it. And our forces on the peninsula are in fact some of the most ready that we have anywhere in the world.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: I have a question about Asian missile technology. It’s not North Korea, though, so --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: All right. Pakistan launched a submarine launch – well, what they said was a submarine-launchable nuclear-capable cruise missile today.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Does this have any concerns in terms of balance in the region or any existing agreements? Is this something that is an issue for the United States?
MR KIRBY: What I can say is we’ve seen reports of this missile launch – submarine-launched missile. We continue to urge all states with nuclear weapons to exercise restraint regarding nuclear and missile capability testing and use, and we encourage efforts to promote confidence building and stability with respect to those capabilities.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Can we go back east between South Korea and Japan? So I know you said last week that the comfort women statue that was erected in Busan, like – that the State Department didn’t have a direct comment on that. But last week, they – Japan pulled out the South Korean ambassador because it was erected.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: I was wondering if you have any response to that action.
MR KIRBY: We are aware of the – of reports that the ambassador was recalled. I think we would leave it to those two countries to speak to that decision. I mean, as you know, it’s not an uncommon practice with respect to moving diplomats in and out, and I think I’d let those two countries talk about that action. Okay?
Steve.
QUESTION: On Syria, President Assad gave a new interview. He made some comments that at peace talks he put everything on the table, even discuss the possibility of elections being held in the country. Does any of this seem realistic or give you any sense of optimism?
MR KIRBY: I think you have to take his comments in the context of things he has said in the past and even not – in the not so distant past about taking – he also said he was going to take back his whole country and we’ve seen the manner in which he sees fit to do that. So I think it’d be difficult to take any stated commitment to him about elections very seriously. What needs to happen is what we’ve said all along needs to happen, and that’s a UN-led process whereby the opposition and the regime begin to have a discussion about what a political transition can look like in Syria, a transition that incorporates the voice of the Syrian people – all of them. And we continue to want to support that process and that process alone.
Go ahead.
QUESTION: Russia. You probably know that the intelligence report, the one that was made public about Russia’s alleged meddling in the U.S. election through leaks, does not provide any evidence for the public to see. The report claims high degree of confidence. Do you think the public should have the same high degree of confidence without seeing the evidence?
MR KIRBY: I don’t think that we should be surprised that in an unclassified version of a highly classified assessment and report that we would be protecting sources and methods. And that all our intelligence communities came to the same basic conclusion over and over again, that they testified publicly to those conclusions last week and that they backed up that testimony in private briefings to some members of Congress, as well as to President Obama and President-elect Trump, I think should give people confidence in their assessments. But nobody – I don’t think anybody should be surprised that in an unclassified version, the intelligence communities protected sensitive information, particularly sourcing and methods; that it would it have been irresponsible for them to have provided – to reveal that sort of information. And we rely on them, as we should, to make that determination for themselves in terms of what information was appropriate to put out publicly.
QUESTION: Sir, it was with high degree of confidence that the intelligence community said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, which led to a disastrous war based on that false assessment. Do you think the public does not deserve to see the evidence in the case of Russia?
MR KIRBY: I don’t think – I don’t think many people would doubt that – the responsibility of the intelligence community to protect sources and methods. I think most of the American people understand that, that they have a responsibility to protect that information for the future. And I don’t think that trying to compare what happened back in 2001 to this assessment is very relevant. The President, Secretary Kerry, as well as every other cabinet official that has spoken on this has spoken to the trust and confidence that they have in the assessment that was made by all 17 intelligence communities. All of them came to the same basic conclusion: That Russia interfered with the U.S. election.
QUESTION: But that’s about the agencies. What about the public? Should the evidence be relevant for the public to see, or should they just take the agency’s word for it?
MR KIRBY: There is a fundamental responsibility not to reveal sources and methods and we leave it to the intelligence community when they make unclassified information such as this to make that determination for themselves on what is appropriate to put out there. And I think you and everybody else can understand they have a responsibility to protect our nation’s secrets so that they can continue to protect us going forward.
Now, you heard the Secretary last week – very clear in his firm admiration for the men and women of the intelligence community in the United States, and the work that they do, and the manner in which they protect the American people day in and day out. And there are hundreds of ways they do that that never sees the light of day, that never gets a headline, and that’s just fine with them. So I think – well, I don’t think. The Secretary believes strongly that they handled this matter in the appropriate way in terms of how it was – how it was analyzed, how it was presented, and how it was briefed to those who needed to see a deeper level of the information. Okay?
QUESTION: Can I just ask you about – about one thing, not specifically about this. But why is it that you say that what happened in 2001 is not relevant to this? I mean, it seems to me that past performance is an indicator of --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, Matt. Look – I mean, look. Nobody is saying that there weren’t mistakes made in 2000, 2001. But that was, what, 15 years ago and a lot has changed in the Intelligence Community since then. We’ve learned a lot. We’ve become much more integrated. Back then, the intelligence communities, as you well know, were much more stove-piped. There wasn’t the level of cooperation that we – I mean, we have moved on. We have learned a lot from those mistakes.
I’m not suggesting that the Intelligence Community – that every bit of intelligence is always 100 percent. In fact, you know yourself that oftentimes – and they are appropriately very careful about that – which makes it all the more remarkable that in this case they were so uniform in their opinion and their high confidence in the role that Russia played.
QUESTION: But in terms of – you say you’re drawing a distinction between then and now because of --
MR KIRBY: I think it – I think it --
QUESTION: Because the intelligence agencies have gotten bigger and better?
MR KIRBY: I think to paint them with the same brush that was used in 2001 is highly unfair and actually wholly irrelevant and inaccurate to the kinds of gains that have been made in intelligence gathering and analysis since then. I mean, we’re talking 15 years.
QUESTION: Right. So --
MR KIRBY: I mean, should they --
QUESTION: Well, you were just talking about 25 years with Iran.
MR KIRBY: Should that be the benchmark for everything?
QUESTION: Well, I – I don’t know. I’m asking you why you think it’s not relevant, what happened then is not relevant now.
MR KIRBY: Because of what’s happened over the last 15 years.
QUESTION: So the improvements and --
MR KIRBY: Improvements in integration, coordination, analysis capability. I mean, we’ve moved on.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: Okay?
QUESTION: I have another one about history. You said you didn’t want to debate history.
MR KIRBY: I don’t.
QUESTION: And I won’t ask you to. But I’m just curious, in light of that, on Iran --
MR KIRBY: Well, then why are you asking me?
QUESTION: Well, no, because of this apology that Secretary Kerry put out to the LGBT community.
MR KIRBY: Right.
QUESTION: I’m just wondering, 11 days left in the --
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: -- in his time. Why?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Why now? And if he felt this strongly, why not do this early on?
MR KIRBY: Sure. No, it’s a fair question. Look, I think this issue of what is known as the Lavender Scare was in relatively recent weeks brought to our attention as a matter of concern by some members of Congress, mostly recently Senator Ben Cardin, who I think we talked about his correspondence directly with the Secretary just last week. And so the Secretary appreciated them expressing their concerns over those events in the ‘40s and ‘50s, took a look at the historical record and decided that it was appropriate to issue this apology, and so he did.
QUESTION: Okay. But it wasn’t until – but the reason for now is because members of Congress were seeking it?
MR KIRBY: It was – it was because several people brought it to his attention here in recent weeks, to include some members of Congress.
QUESTION: Okay. So he wasn’t – I don’t want to suggest that he didn’t – was clueless about it before, but I mean --
MR KIRBY: I think – look, look.
QUESTION: This wasn’t, like, high on his --
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: -- agenda? Because I mean, in the statement he talks about --
MR KIRBY: His record.
QUESTION: Exactly.
MR KIRBY: His record.
QUESTION: In the statement he talks about his – his record of support.
MR KIRBY: His record on these issues, LGBTI rights, is longstanding as a member of Congress as well as Secretary of State. He has done a lot to advance those causes.
QUESTION: John, now you’re being defensive. I’m not trying – I’m just trying to figure out if he – was this something in the back of his mind that got moved to the front because of what --
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I mean, he certainly --
QUESTION: -- what he – the people are bringing it to his attention now?
MR KIRBY: He certainly knew the basics of the history of the Lavender Scare.
QUESTION: Okay, okay.
MR KIRBY: I don’t think he considered himself an expert on it. It was brought to his attention in recent weeks, and he felt it was appropriate to issue the apology.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: On Syria, a couple questions on Syria. One is that President Assad’s claim that he’s willing or he will take back the country, the whole country. So would – in a case of like that or Bashar Assad or any other forces tried to undo what you have done with the SDF or other forces that you’re partners in Syria, would you tolerate any actions against these forces to undo what you have done? Because it’s not just militarily you are helping them. Also there are some humanitarian assistance to these area --
MR KIRBY: I’m not really sure what you mean by “undo” what we’ve done.
QUESTION: Like retaking the area. I mean, just kicking out every force, like your partners, SDF, everyone from Manbij, for example, Kobani.
MR KIRBY: I don’t think it’d be useful for me to speculate or hypothesize about what might or might not happen. The support that the coalition provides to the Syrian Democratic Forces is designed for one goal and one goal only, and that is to defeat Daesh. That’s the effort. We have long said that what needs to happen with respect to the civil war in Syria is a political solution, and that’s what the Secretary has labored so hard for. He will stay focused on that for the next couple of weeks. But I’m not able to predict or speculate what might happen if Bashar al-Assad moves into those areas. What Bashar al-Assad really needs to do is stop bombing his own people, allow for humanitarian assistance to get in, and prove that he’s committed to participating in UN-led political talks in Geneva to end the war.
QUESTION: On the refugees program, I got some information from the State Department that in Fiscal Year 2016 you have got over 12,000 Syrian refugees to the United States, which was meeting the goal even more than what President Obama said, like, at least bringing 10,000. What is the status for this year? Are you trying to keep the same goal or – because you have allocated money for that program for this year too, so if you --
MR KIRBY: Well, the President said for Fiscal Year ’17 that we were going to shoot for a goal of 110,000 total refugees – not just from any one place. There has not been a goal set by the President for Fiscal Year ’17 with respect to refugees specifically from Syria.
QUESTION: So any – do you have any idea that how is the status after – like, since October is the fiscal year – the new fiscal year, so do you have --
MR KIRBY: I can – we can get that for you. I don’t have an exact number of what’s been brought in thus far in the fiscal year, but we can ask and see.
QUESTION: Okay. So can I switch to Iraq or --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. The – couple days ago of Turkish Prime Minister Yildirim visited Iraq and he met with Kurdish and Iraqi leaders in Baghdad and Erbil. One of the topics they talked about is the military and deployment – Turkish military deployment in Iraq and that issue. So if you would just comment on that – on the visit in general and on were you involved in any way, because you – previously you have asked both sides to de-escalate the tensions they had over the --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, we --
QUESTION: -- Turkish army --
MR KIRBY: I think I talked about this last week. I’m not going to – I don’t have a readout to offer to you. We weren’t party to these meetings. Certainly, as we’ve said over and over again, we respect the sovereign right of the government in Baghdad to meet and discuss and have dialogue with neighbors and partners in the region, including Turkey. We obviously look favorably on dialogue between Turkey and Iraq on a number of issues, but I’d leave it to leaders from both those countries to speak to what was discussed and what the outcomes were.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: That’s not for us to speak to. But I said all that last week, so that’s – I’m not giving you anything different.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I’m Kawa from Kurdistan 24.
MR KIRBY: From where?
QUESTION: Kurdistan 24.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Yeah, I came on behalf of Laurie. I will ask a question if you allow me about the same case of the Turkish minister while they were talking about the very important and sensitive case, which is PKK in Sinjar. And also, United States also been concerned about this case and ask the PKK to get out from Sinjar, but it looks like from the last information that the PKK are showing a kind of resist and rejecting for getting out. In case if they insisted of getting out from Sinjar, which is a part of threat for the area – and also the United States needs the area to get stable and for the sovereign of Iraq too – what will be the advice of the United States for Turkey and the Iraqi Government and the Kurds to react in this situation?
MR KIRBY: Well, I wouldn’t get ahead of diplomatic discussions that haven’t occurred and for all I know might not occur, okay, so I don’t want to speculate. That was a long windup in your question. Only thing I would say is that the PKK remains a foreign terrorist organization. We consider them a terrorist organization. We recognize that the threat that they pose in the region and specifically to Turkey, and we continue to support Turkey in their counterterrorism efforts. Okay?
I got time for --
QUESTION: I – I have a very brief logistical one, but someone else can go first.
MR KIRBY: Okay, you and then Matt, and then that will be it.
QUESTION: Yeah, on the same thing in Sinjar. I don’t know if you’re aware of the situation in Sinjar. There are PKK and there are some other forces which is also they are in conflict with the Kurdish forces, but they have, like, the support of Baghdad – the Yezidi forces there. I don’t know how you are involved, if you are aware of the conflicts or the tensions between the KRG and also these forces that are there in Sinjar, because that situation is very delicate and the residents – the IDPs, they are not returning to their places because of the having multiple forces in the area. If you just – I don’t know if you are aware of anything --
MR KIRBY: Is there a question there?
QUESTION: -- anything. Yeah.
MR KIRBY: I mean, I think I’d refer you to the – to DOD to speak to a specific situation on the ground. Obviously, we’re well aware --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: We’re well aware of the tensions in and around Sinjar. We’re well aware of the PKK’s influence. I’ve already stated our view of the PKK and who they are and what they are, but for specifics about the situation on the ground, I think I’d point you to DOD as a much better source. Okay?
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: Sorry, I just wanted to – the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson is in town. He’s going to be up on the Hill later this afternoon. I know the Secretary is not back yet, but he will be back tomorrow, obviously, although it seems like he has a busy day.
MR KIRBY: He’ll be back this evening, but there are no plans to --
QUESTION: But I just --
MR KIRBY: -- meet with the foreign minister.
QUESTION: Okay, but would anyone else? Do you know if Mr. Johnson – Foreign Secretary Johnson --
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any meetings --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- that the foreign minister will be having here at the State Department.
Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:44 p.m.)
DPB # 4
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.
January 4, 2017
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - January 4, 2017
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 4, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
LIBYA
NORTH KOREA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE/REGION
DEPARTMENT
TURKEY/REGION
SYRIA/REGION
TURKEY/IRAQ
IRAQ
TRANSCRIPT:
2:10 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Well, well, well, look who’s returned.
QUESTION: I have returned.
MR KIRBY: Daddy Lee. And how is the little one?
QUESTION: She’s great, thank you.
MR KIRBY: You getting any sleep?
QUESTION: Not a lot. (Laughter.) But more than my wife is. Not a lot.
MR KIRBY: Well, congratulations again.
QUESTION: Thank you very much.
MR KIRBY: And it’s great to have you back.
QUESTION: Thanks. Happy New Year.
MR KIRBY: And to you.
Just one opening set of comments here on Libya. We note with deep concern today renewed fighting between Libyans in the central region of the country, fighting which we believe will only benefit Daesh and other violent extremists there. Obviously, we urge all parties to exercise some restraint here. The truth is that to date, Libyan forces have made progress against Daesh in Sirte and in eastern Libya, and that’s what makes this renewed fighting here of concern.
So we continue to encourage all parties to support the Government of National Accord – the GNA as it’s known – as it works to address the country’s critical challenges, to preserve its unity, and oversee a transition to a new government through peaceful elections that are stipulated in the Libyan Political Agreement, otherwise known as the LPA.
So obviously, we also urge all parties to renew efforts for national reconciliation through political dialogue, and we reiterate our strong support for the GNA and the LPA. This is, as we have said before, the time for all Libyans throughout the country to come together for the benefit of their nation and their fellow citizens.
With that, Matt.
QUESTION: Right. So I don’t have a lot because I’m still trying to catch up on everything that I missed in December, which apparently was pretty much nothing, right? Nothing happened, no news?
MR KIRBY: It was very quiet. Do you want to rehash it all?
QUESTION: No. No, no, I don’t.
MR KIRBY: We could do a two- or three-hour briefing today.
QUESTION: I don’t. But I’m still trying to --
QUESTION: I wanted to follow up on Libya --
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- if you don’t have anything, Matt.
QUESTION: No, I don’t have anything.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. General Haftar said that he received a promise from Russia to receive arms from the Russians. Do you have anything on this?
MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments, so I’m afraid I don’t have a reaction to them. I just haven’t seen that. But stepping back, as I said in my opening statement, we believe now is the time for all Libyans – all Libyans – to come together and to support the GNA, as the international community has done. That’s really where we want the focus to be. And so fighting each other in any part of the country is counterproductive to the larger effort of going after Daesh. But I don’t have any particular reaction or comment to those remarks because I haven’t seen them. Okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: That would be a breach of the embargo, though, if weapons were sent to Haftar?
MR KIRBY: Of course it would, right.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: But I just haven’t seen the comments.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: So can I ask you, just to follow up on I guess what was the main topic of discussion here yesterday, on North Korea?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Is there anything new to say about this apparent threat?
MR KIRBY: No, I don’t have anything to add from what we said yesterday. Look, I think you know these were comments he made in an annual New Year’s speech.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: But as we’ve also said, we are forced by his actions in the past to take his rhetoric seriously, and we do. I wouldn’t discuss intelligence issues one way or the other in terms of what we – what assessment we might make of where he is on this particular issue, but obviously, it’s something we’re watching very closely.
QUESTION: All right. And then I just want to – I have one other thing that I – last month – or last year, the end of last year, did nothing to improve the relations between this Administration and the Israeli Government, in particular the prime minister of Israel. And in light of the fact that peace is not breaking out all over there, and in light of the tensions that do exist, is it safe to assume – with that backdrop, yesterday there was legislation introduced by three senators that would require the movement of the U.S. embassy currently in Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and require the Administration to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. Given your past – or this Administration’s past feelings, am I right in assuming that this current Administration would oppose that?
MR KIRBY: Yes, you are correct in assuming that.
QUESTION: Okay. But given the fact that this Administration is going to be out in two weeks, roughly two weeks, and that Congress will probably – if it does pass, it will be presented to a president, now president-elect who has said he’s in support of those things. And I’m wondering: Would the Administration be prepared to begin preparations to do such a thing if this legislation advances, or is that something that you guys want nothing to do with and you’ll just – it’ll be up to the incoming administration to proceed?
MR KIRBY: You mean if it passes before we’re out of office?
QUESTION: No, no, no. No, even if it looks like it’s going to go someplace, or if – and I don’t want to couch this as an “if,” but – because that’s hypothetical --
MR KIRBY: Right. No, I --
QUESTION: But should the incoming team say, “Hey, as part of the transition, we want to do this as quickly as possible, and to do that we need to get things going,” is this Administration prepared to help implement what the next administration says its policy will be with regard to the --
MR KIRBY: Right. The short answer is no, Matt. I mean, you have one president at a time and in our --
QUESTION: Right. But this is just planning.
MR KIRBY: I know that. I know that. But we continue to believe – it’s our policy and it’s been – and it was policy of previous administrations as well – that moving the embassy to Jerusalem is not a good idea. It’s not constructive to the overall peace process. It could actually put some of our people, some of our troops, those that work at the embassy, in harm’s way, and needlessly so. So we don’t support that move. We stand by the policy that we’ve been supporting now. And if the next administration wants to move forward, that’s certainly their prerogative, but under President Obama – and he’s still President of the United States – we don’t support that. And we at the State Department here wouldn’t support efforts to move in that direction while we’re still in office.
QUESTION: Okay. So you wouldn’t – I just want to make sure then that should a request come in to say, as part of the transition, as part of planning for the smooth transition that everyone says they want, including the Secretary and the current President, that the department would not go ahead and --
MR KIRBY: We would not. That said, I don’t think that puts at risk a smooth transition. The transition is about giving them the context and information that they need to make their own decisions and not necessarily to --
QUESTION: So you’re saying you would argue against it?
MR KIRBY: -- move forward with decisions before they’re inaugurated.
QUESTION: Well, yeah, but you’re not moving forward. It’s just a preparation and planning thing because it’s probably not just as easy as taking a sign that says “Embassy” and putting it on the consulate in Jerusalem, right?
MR KIRBY: Correct, correct.
QUESTION: So there’s going to have to be some planning done. Anyway, I think you answered my question. But what --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, the answer is no.
QUESTION: What did you – what did you mean by “could put our troops,” some of our troops, “in harm’s way”?
MR KIRBY: I just meant you’ve got --
QUESTION: Marine guards?
MR KIRBY: You’ve got Marine embassy guards and --
QUESTION: How would moving them --
MR KIRBY: Because again, we think that – we think that putting it there in Jerusalem is not – it’s not constructive and conducive to the peace process, and because it could – a move like that could exacerbate tensions.
QUESTION: So – but – or do you think that they would be more at – in harm’s way in Jerusalem rather than in --
MR KIRBY: It could exacerbate tensions not just there but elsewhere in the region too, because it could exacerbate the tensions that already exist between Israelis and Palestinians.
QUESTION: So in other --
MR KIRBY: There and elsewhere in the region.
QUESTION: In Arab countries like in Jordan or Egypt or Saudi --
MR KIRBY: Perhaps.
QUESTION: -- you think that there --
MR KIRBY: Perhaps, perhaps. Correct.
QUESTION: All right. Thank you.
QUESTION: Could I follow up on that?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: In your conversations with your allies like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and so on, the Arab countries, have you been sort of warned or counseled against moving the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? And why is that --
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any specific warning, Said. This has been a longstanding policy even before this Administration.
QUESTION: Right. But it would be perceived – if such a move would take place, it would be perceived as a provocative action, you think?
MR KIRBY: Again, I think I’ve answered the question. It could potentially be provocative there and elsewhere in the region. And more importantly, we just don’t believe that it’s conducive to moving the peace process forward.
QUESTION: Let me ask you a couple more questions on – if we can stay on this issue very quickly. An Israeli court sentenced two 13-year-old boys to two years in prison. There was a stop-and-search, and they claimed that they found knives on them. Do you find this to be a bit severe to sentence two 13-year-olds that were 12 at the time when they were arrested?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have the details on this case.
QUESTION: Okay. Would that be – in fact, one of the boys has already spent more than a year in prison, so – but they are not going to count that as part of it.
MR KIRBY: I don’t have – I can’t comment on that case, Said. I simply don’t have any information.
QUESTION: Okay. And my last question – I don’t know if you’re aware, there is the Israeli soldier who was convicted of manslaughter, of killing a Palestinian after he was wounded last year. The person that took the video is claiming that he’s been threatened by the family and so on. Should the Israeli Government give the person who filmed the episode, Emad Abu-Shamsiyah – should they give him protection, do you think, seeing that the – if they don’t give him protection that his life would be in jeopardy? Because he claims that the family of the soldier broke into his house and they demanded that he go back to the court, that he go to the court and change his testimony.
MR KIRBY: Okay. I’m not aware that that occurred. And really, an issue like that is really one for Israeli authorities to speak to and to make decisions for, not for us.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Staying with Israel, Mr. Netanyahu has apparently told his diplomats that their focus in the next couple of weeks should be to do everything they can to prevent the substance of Mr. Kerry’s speech coming before the UN in a resolution form, and the fear apparently is that at this French conference it might be codified in some way that could then be presented to the UN not by the United States but perhaps by others. Would the U.S. – I know that Mr. Kerry has said there’s going to be no more UN activity, but would the U.S. rule out another abstention especially if it was his policies that was being voted on?
MR KIRBY: I don’t think it would be helpful for me to speculate one way or the other about potential future actions.
QUESTION: Can I just --
MR KIRBY: Dave.
QUESTION: -- follow up on this? Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Oh, no --
QUESTION: No, no, no, no, no, go ahead.
QUESTION: Mine’s a different thing.
QUESTION: No, I just wanted to follow up because I think I asked a little bit about this yesterday. But you are not ruling out if there is a conference in mid-month – mid-January there is a conference in Paris – you are not ruling out the participation of Secretary Kerry, are you?
MR KIRBY: I’m not – I don’t have anything on the Secretary’s schedule to speak to today.
QUESTION: You’re not ruling in or ruling out?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything on his schedule to speak to today.
QUESTION: Thank you, David.
QUESTION: This is a procedural thing. I’ve never covered a transition before. Will the incoming Secretary of State be prepared by this department for his nomination hearings at the Senate?
MR KIRBY: We have – we continue to provide the transition team information and context at their request. As I said earlier, I’m not going to get into what that information is. But he is being prepared for his confirmation hearing by the transition team.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Okay?
QUESTION: And that’s typically how it would work?
MR KIRBY: That’s my – I’ve never been through one of these here at the State Department, but in my past experience, yeah, that’s not unusual.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: Assuming a new secretary is not confirmed by Inauguration Day, could you explain how the acting Secretary of State will be chosen? There’s speculation that Mr. Shannon – Under Secretary Shannon would step into that role as the two positions above him, I believe, are likely to be vacant at that time.
MR KIRBY: Look, the way – I mean, there’s a line of succession – Secretary, Deputy Secretary, Deputy Secretary for Management and Resources, Under Secretary for Political Affairs – we can get all this to you, Steve. On Inauguration Day, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs Tom Shannon would be the most senior career officer in the line of succession. But ultimately, decisions about that, about if the secretary-designate is not confirmed – ultimately decisions about who would be acting would be really up to the transition team, to the new – at that point they would be the new administration.
QUESTION: They can appoint someone else outside of the line?
MR KIRBY: I’m being very precise here.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: I’m telling you that the Under Secretary for Political Affairs Tom Shannon would be the most senior career officer in the line of succession here in the building – will be on the 20th, but ultimately these kinds of decisions about acting, that’s – those are questions the new administration have to answer. Okay?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Turkey. Related to attack that happened over the weekend in Istanbul, President Obama ordered his team to provide necessary and appropriate assistance to Turkey with regard to this attack. Did Turkey ask for any assistance? If did, what kind of assistance did you provide?
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that there has been a request for specific investigative assistance.
QUESTION: Okay, one more question. Do you have any evaluation in terms of the suspect, whether he’s an ISIS militant or just a person radicalized by the ISIS propaganda?
MR KIRBY: I think that’s a question for Turkish authorities who are investigating this attack to work out, not for us.
QUESTION: Staying on Turkey?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: So is it the position of the United States Government to support Turkey’s efforts to recapture al-Bab from ISIS?
MR KIRBY: I think my colleagues at the Pentagon have already talked about this. We have provided support to Turkey for operations to clear its border area of ISIL, and that includes some support for their efforts in and around al-Bab. There are ongoing discussions about support going forward that the military’s having with Turkey, and I’m not going to get ahead of that.
QUESTION: And the Turkish defense minister today, I believe, complained that the amount of support for a NATO ally was insufficient. Do – how do you – would you respond to those comments or, I mean, is – do you feel that that characterization is fair?
MR KIRBY: I don’t think it’s valuable for us to deliberate this in public. We have supported Turkish operations along their border. We have provided some support. With respect to al-Bab, again, the Pentagon has talked about that and there are ongoing discussions now about support going forward. And I think I’m going to leave it there.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you have any numbers on the support that you gave, like area strike or ground --
MR KIRBY: You can contact --
QUESTION: Can you give some numbers?
MR KIRBY: You can contact the Defense Department. I don’t do military operations anymore.
Yeah.
QUESTION: I just wanted to ask you if we can figure out who – which groups are you supporting now in Syria in the fight against ISIS? What – who are the groups, the moderate groups? Are you supporting, let’s say, the Free Syria Army? Are you supporting other groups and so on? Because --
MR KIRBY: Said, I don’t have – as I’ve said, we’ve talked about this many times. I don’t have an exhaustive list for you. We refer to the Syrian Democratic Forces writ large, and there are many parts to that – to them, and they have proven to be very capable fighters, and again, that’s the – that’s the entity through which – or that the coalition supports.
QUESTION: Because yesterday, apparently the Fateh al-Sham, who morphed from al-Nusrah, they were saying that --
MR KIRBY: They didn’t morph from al-Nusrah. They slapped a new name on.
QUESTION: Right, they just slapped – okay.
MR KIRBY: So let’s – yeah.
QUESTION: All right, so they’re – they just put on a new name – and they claimed that they lost 25 fighters as the result of an air raid, but they’re saying that it was the U.S.-led coalition that conducted that air raid. Are you aware of that claim?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, we talked about it yesterday and I pointed you to the Defense Department.
QUESTION: Any more – any more information on that?
MR KIRBY: I don’t, no.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Did you also yesterday talk about – I haven’t read the entire transcript from yesterday. My apologies. It is scintillating reading, however, I can assure you. Did you talk about the – what seems to be violations or beginning of the end of this truce that was negotiated?
MR KIRBY: We did talk about it. I don’t have any updates from yesterday. It does – as it was yesterday, it appears to be breaking down in areas.
QUESTION: And this is not a surprise to you, or it is?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I said yesterday, we wanted to see it succeed. But sadly, we’ve also seen this exact thing happen before many, many times – even ceasefires or cessations of hostilities that we had nothing to do with announcing, they quickly break down, because as we’ve seen in the last 24 to 36 hours, the regime takes advantage of the – of whatever lull in the fighting there is to continue to pound the opposition, and that’s what we’re seeing again happen here.
QUESTION: Do you have any comment on what Staffan de Mistura said, that he will not attend the Astana negotiations and he would wait --
MR KIRBY: No, those are decisions that --
QUESTION: -- he would wait for Geneva?
MR KIRBY: Well, those are certainly his decisions.
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: I would tell you that from our perspective, we continue to support his efforts, which is sanctioned by the UN, to lead the political process forward. He is the designated representative of the United Nations to move the political talks forward, and if he has decided that he’s not going to attend, then that’s certainly within his – it’s in the scope of his responsibilities to do so. We – our support for him and his efforts have not changed.
QUESTION: Any phone call between Secretary Kerry and Minister Lavrov?
MR KIRBY: Nope, I don’t have any more discussions to read out.
QUESTION: And for clarification too, is the U.S. delegation still in Geneva or Geneva process and the delegation is --
MR KIRBY: In terms of – in terms of a dialogue and process of moving forward on a cessation of hostilities in Geneva, no. Do we have personnel that work in and out of Geneva? Yes, but nobody is working on this issue from a U.S. team perspective in Geneva.
Yeah.
QUESTION: The Turkish prime minister is expected to visit Baghdad to mend ties with the Abadi government. Do you support that move?
MR KIRBY: Do I support him traveling?
QUESTION: To Baghdad. It’s a rare visit by the Turkish prime minister to Iraq. He’s trying to mend ties with --
MR KIRBY: Well, I wouldn’t comment one way or another about the travel of a foreign leader to a neighboring nation. Turkey’s a part of the coalition to counter Daesh, and so it wouldn’t – it shouldn’t surprise anybody that the prime minister may want to go to Iraq to have discussions about that fight. And as we’ve said long – many, many times, that we’ve encouraged bilateral dialogue and discussion between Turkey and Iraq on a whole range of regional issues. So there’s no concern here, but it’s not for us to comment or approve or disapprove one way or the other.
QUESTION: Can I ask one more question about Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR KIRBY: I think the silence gives you the go-ahead.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you. (Laughter.) So in Mosul, reportedly, the coalition has destroyed almost all the bridges inside the city of Mosul. So this has raised a concern for the – that might restrict freedom of movement for civilians, especially those who wish to escape ISIS. Do you share that concern or --
MR KIRBY: We have long had concerns about the humanitarian efforts that were going to be required as the Mosul campaign started, and those are – those – we’ve been long in discussions with the Iraqi Government about how to deal with that, and we talked about this at length yesterday in the briefing. I’ll point you back to the transcript in terms of what we’ve done on the humanitarian front. I would remind you – and again, I’m not going to get into a lengthy dissertation here on the military operation itself – but those bridges were avenues of resupply and resourcing by Daesh and so were, in fact, legitimate military targets. That they might impede the movement of internally displaced people is certainly beyond doubt, of course. But we have and have for many months factored in trying to support internally displaced people as best as possible.
And the other thing I’d tell you is that – and one of the reasons why the campaign to Mosul took as long as it did and was carefully thought through was because they were also – there was also a lot of planning, remains a lot of planning on post-campaign stabilization and rebuilding the infrastructure. So there is a lot of effort on that. It’s not as if people aren’t thinking about not just bridges, but other civilian infrastructure – schools, hospitals, housing, all of that stuff has to be considered and is being considered by the Iraqi Government as it moves forward, okay?
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay. Thanks, everybody.
QUESTION: Thank you.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:33 p.m.)
DPB #2
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.
January 3, 2017
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - January 3, 2017
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
January 3, 2017
Index for Today's Briefing
NORTH KOREA/REGION
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
IRAQ
AFGHANISTAN
PAKISTAN/INDIA
EGYPT
UNITED NATIONS
PHILIPPINES/RUSSIA
DEPARTMENT
SYRIA
RUSSIA
SYRIA
TRANSCRIPT:
2:09 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody, and Happy New Year to you. Hope everybody had a good holiday season, a chance to take a break. My break, my gift to you for the New Year, is that I do not have an opening statement. So we will get right after it.
Go ahead, sir.
QUESTION: I’d like to start on North Korea. Kim Jong-un, in his New Year’s address, said that North Korea was in preparations for doing an ICBM test, were reaching the final stage.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: I wondered if you had any reaction to that and if you’ve any indication that a – that test is – a missile test of some sort is in the works.
MR KIRBY: Well, as I think you know, generally we don’t talk about intelligence matters or intelligence assessments with respect to specifics about the capabilities that they continue to pursue both on the ballistic missile side and, of course, on the nuclear side. So I’m not going to get into characterizing or confirming the veracity of the comments in his New Year’s speech.
What I will do though is, as we have before, continue to call on the DPRK to refrain from provocative actions and inflammatory rhetoric that threaten international peace and stability. And we want them to make the strategic choice to fulfill their international obligations and commitments and return, frankly, to the Six-Party Talk process.
There have been multiple UN Security Council resolutions that explicitly prohibit North Korea launches using ballistic missile technology. They are still in effect. And we continue to call on all states to use every available channel and means of influence to likewise make clear to the DPRK and its enablers that launches using ballistic missile technology are unacceptable, and of course, also to take steps to show and to prove that there are consequences to this unlawful conduct.
So we’re certainly aware of what he said. We’re obviously aware of the capabilities they continue to pursue. And that’s why the United States continues to work with the international community to hold Pyongyang to account for the pursuit of these capabilities and for the instability that they are contributing to.
I would remind that the sanctions regime put in place recently is the most stringent over the last two decades and that they are being implemented. So I guess we’re just going to have to – we’re going to have to, obviously, watch this going forward. But the international community is clearly galvanized like it hasn’t been before.
QUESTION: Do you have any way to convey these ideas directly to North Korea at this point?
MR KIRBY: Well, you know we don’t have direct diplomatic relations with the North. But frankly, I mean, in a sense, I’m – we’re doing it now, as we do when we talk about this publicly. And we certainly have made these exact concerns and these exact statements well known and clear through the UN, though the UN and the UN Security Council.
QUESTION: Kirby, can I follow up on that one? So Blinken is meeting with his counterparts from Japan and South Korea.
MR KIRBY: Later this week, yes.
QUESTION: Those talks were already scheduled before, before the statement.
MR KIRBY: Yes.
QUESTION: But is there anything that this – this – is there anything you can do or the way the discussion could go given this latest statement?
MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, first of all, Lesley, I – I think it’s safe to assume that North Korea will be on the agenda in these trilateral talks. And this is, I think, the sixth round of these deputy foreign minister trilateral talks, and the deputy is very much looking forward to it. No question that tensions on the Korean Peninsula will be a topic of discussion. Where that’s going to take us, what’s going to be said, especially in light of Kim Jong-un’s speech, I don’t know. I can tell you that we’ll obviously be providing a readout of the discussion. And so when it happens on Thursday after it’s over, we’ll be happy to do that.
QUESTION: And then what is the U.S. assessment? I know you say you don’t talk about intelligence, but what if he’s lying? I mean, what if this is just an empty – empty threat? What is your assessment? I mean, is he close to – is this the last stage, or he is just --
MR KIRBY: I think the intel – my understanding is that – again, we don’t talk about intelligence issues, so that’s one. Number two, we do continue to believe that he continues to pursue both nuclear and ballistic missile technologies. I mean, that’s pretty apparent. We do not believe that he, at this point in time, has the capability to tip one of these with a nuclear warhead. That’s as far as I’m going to go in terms of assessing. But we do know that he continues to want to have those capabilities and he continues – the programs continue to march in that direction, which is why, quite frankly, that the whole international community is as galvanized as it is to try to deter and to stop that.
Now, yes, there’s a very stringent sanctions regime in place; no question about that. Sanctions take a long time to work; we know that. Sanctions are only as good as they are enforced, and in past sanctions regimes it hasn’t always been uniformly enforced. China has said they will enforce these, and that’s our expectation that they will, that they will do that.
I will also remind that we also – we – that there is a military component to the Asia Pacific rebalance that the United States has pursued, and we have the majority of the U.S. Navy in the Pacific region. We’ve moved special radars into place. We have missile defense capabilities of our own in that part of the world. So it’s not as if – it’s not as if we’re relying solely on simply sanctions regimes to exert the proper pressure on Pyongyang. We’ve obviously taken and will continue to take the kinds of measures that we believe is important for our own national defense.
QUESTION: And since the statement on Sunday, has there been any discussions with China in the meantime about – about this?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any discussions with China to read out with respect to this particular speech, but if that changes we can let you know.
QUESTION: John, can we move on?
QUESTION: John, the apparent --
MR KIRBY: We’ll stay on --
QUESTION: -- apparent determination --
MR KIRBY: I think we’re staying on North Korea. Go ahead.
QUESTION: Yeah. The apparent determination of Kim Jong-un to pursue the ICBM in despite of what you described as a stringent sanctions regime, is that because the sanctions didn’t convince him or because they haven’t been adequately enforced?
MR KIRBY: I can’t get inside his head and tell you what --
QUESTION: But do you feel they’ve been adequately enforced?
MR KIRBY: They are being enforced. And we’re – what I would say is we’re constantly monitoring the enforcement across the international community. I can’t stand here and tell you that they’re being perfectly enforced by every single nation, but the general sense is that they are being implemented. It is a kind of thing that constantly needs to be evaluated, monitored, and discussed at the UN, and I know that it is. For our part, we certainly are and we expect every other nation to do the same.
What’s – what decision matrix Kim Jong-un is using to continue to explore this technology, I really can’t speak to. But what I can speak to is as he continues to pursue those, the international community is going to continue to stay galvanized against that, because it’s not just destabilizing for the peninsula; it’s destabilizing for the region and the world.
QUESTION: But if they are being adequately enforced and it hasn’t stopped him, then you need stronger sanctions or another option.
MR KIRBY: Well, we haven’t ruled out the possibility of additional sanctions. In fact, in light of the most recent test, there were discussions at the UN. And I’ve certainly – and first of all, let’s not – let’s not get ahead of where we are. We’ve seen a speech and we’ve seen some rhetoric. I’m not in a position to say one way or another that that leads to something imminent right now, so we need to stay where we are, where things are. And we know that he continues to pursue this, so we will certainly continue to explore options to increase, if needed, the international pressure on Pyongyang.
The second thing I’d say is that – and you know this – sanctions take time. He has obviously proven impervious to sanction pressure in the past because he continues to explore these capabilities. But it doesn’t mean that, at least for the United States’ part, that we’re simply relying on sanctions and sanctions alone. As I said, there is a robust U.S. military presence in the Pacific region, in the north Pacific region specifically. We have ironclad security commitments there on the peninsula with Republic of Korea allies that we take very, very seriously. So I mean, it’s – the entire U.S. Government here is rightly, as we should be, focused on this growing threat.
QUESTION: You called for a return to Six-Party Talks. Obviously, the Iran nuclear deal came out of multilateral talks, but parallel to that, as we now know, the United States engaged directly with Iran. And it was seen by many outside observers that the bilateral ties between Iran and the United States were what bore fruit and brought around the P5+1 deal for the JCPOA. Has there been any discussion about direct contacts between Washington and Pyongyang on this issue?
MR KIRBY: I would say, just in answer to that, that our focus continues to be on returning to the Six-Party process.
I’ll go to --
QUESTION: Six-Party Talks?
MR KIRBY: You want to go to that? And then I’ll go to you, James. Are you still on North Korea?
QUESTION: I’m on North Korea. Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Okay. So Steve and then James.
QUESTION: Yeah. Following up on Six-Party Talks, you mentioned – you called for them to return to that process. Is that without preconditions?
MR KIRBY: It has always been. I mean, we want them to return. And the – but the condition is that they have to commit to a verifiable denuclearization of the peninsula. That’s always been the case, if that’s what you mean by preconditions. Nothing’s changed in that regard. They’ve got to be able to commit to denuclearization of the peninsula, and they have proven, obviously, unwilling to do that and unwilling to return to the process.
QUESTION: Just a few different categories on this subject, if you would. First, is it the view of the department that China is doing all it can do to rein in North Korea’s nuclear ambitions?
MR KIRBY: Chinese officials have made clear that they intend to implement the resolution, and we’re engaged with an ongoing dialogue with them to that end, as well as our allies and our partners, on how to best curtail the DPRK’s pursuit of nuclear ballistic missile and proliferation programs.
QUESTION: I didn’t ask if it is the view of the Department that China is doing everything it can to comply with the resolution. I asked if it is the view of this Department that China is doing all it can do.
MR KIRBY: No, I understand the question. I’ll leave my answer as it is.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Is it fair to say that China is doing nothing on the North Korean problem --
MR KIRBY: No, I would --
QUESTION: -- as the president-elect tweeted?
MR KIRBY: I would not – we would not agree with that assessment.
QUESTION: The Chinese foreign ministry said today, apparently in response to the president-elect’s tweet, that, “We hope all sides can refrain from speaking or doing anything that can aggravate the situation.” Is it the view of the Department that the president-elect’s tweets are, in fact, aggravating the situation?
MR KIRBY: We’re not taking a position on the president-elect’s tweets with this or any other issue. What we are concerning ourselves with, James, is continuing to see international pressure being applied to Pyongyang to make the right decisions. And as I said, the international community is galvanized like it’s never been before. Does that mean that every country is implementing every single one of the sanctions that are in place on any or every given day? Of course not. But that doesn’t mean that we don’t want to see that happen. And it doesn’t mean that the sanctions that are being implemented are, in fact, still the most stringent that have been in place in the last 20 years.
So it is – what I will say about China is that it is clear that they are absolutely concerned about the direction that Pyongyang is taking, and one shouldn’t be surprised by that. I mean, the DPRK is a southern neighbor and they share a border. They have been concerned about sanctions in the past because their southern provinces do direct business in North Korea. But they did sign up to these very robust sanctions, and they have publicly committed to implementing those sanctions, and that’s going to be our expectation going forward.
QUESTION: Two last questions: To your knowledge, has any official inside the Obama Administration, at any point, taken any steps to initiate direct diplomacy with North Korea?
MR KIRBY: Not to my knowledge, James.
QUESTION: Lastly, is it the view of the department that – or let me rephrase that. Does the Secretary of State proceed from the assumption that Kim Jong-un is a rational actor?
MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) Does the Secretary of State presume that --
QUESTION: Proceed from the assumption that in attempting to deal with this regime in whatever mechanisms we use, that he is dealing with a rational actor?
MR KIRBY: It is – it’s difficult when you look at the decisions that he is making, the programs that he is pursuing in the face of international will against him – it’s difficult to understand, as I said to Dave, the rationale in making those decisions and in pursuing those programs, which are clearly coming at the expense of his own people, clearly coming at the expense of security and stability around him and his own citizens and in the region.
But I don’t believe that we are pursuing the options that we are pursuing based on a litmus test or a view or a personal assessment of his psychology and the degree to which he’s rational on any given day. We are, however, pursuing these options based squarely on what we see in his actions. It’s hard to get inside his head, but it’s pretty easy to see from his actions – I mean, this is a man, mind you, that executes his own officials using antiaircraft gunnery.
QUESTION: And what does that tell you?
MR KIRBY: It tells me that – and I think it tells the world that – he is – that he is utterly brutal and continues to rule with an iron fist. And because of what you can gather from his actions and the brutality, obviously, that he’s capable of and continues to demonstrate that we have to take him seriously when he issues threats, and we do. We always do.
So I know I didn’t perfectly answer your question, because I didn’t – it’s not that we’re looking at this from a psychological perspective, but we certainly are judging him based on his actions, and his actions bespeak utter brutality. And we have to assume that that is the basis of the decisions that – that that is at least a part of the basis of his decisions going forward.
QUESTION: Can we move on?
QUESTION: Yeah. Please.
QUESTION: Sorry, North Korea.
QUESTION: Can we move on?
MR KIRBY: Are we done with --
QUESTION: A different thing.
MR KIRBY: Are we done with Korea?
QUESTION: Just one more.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: So has this recent statement accelerated anything, as far as THAAD deployment?
MR KIRBY: I have no operational decisions to read out to you, one way or another. I would refer you to my counterparts at the Defense Department to speak specifically to that, because I’m just not – I’m not really informed enough to know where the discussions are on THAAD. You’d have to talk to the Pentagon.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Okay. Still on Korea? You have one more?
QUESTION: John, you mentioned that the U.S. doesn’t believe that North Korea has the capability to --
MR KIRBY: To tip one.
QUESTION: -- put a nuclear warhead on one of its missiles.
MR KIRBY: To tip one. Yeah.
QUESTION: Does that mean any kind of missile, a short-range missile, a mid-range?
MR KIRBY: I think I’m just going to leave it at that. I’m going to leave my statement where it was.
Yeah, Said.
QUESTION: Yeah. Thanks. I want to go the Palestinian-Israeli issue.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Since we haven’t had a chance to discuss the Secretary’s speech last week, for which you’ve gotten a lot of flak. But I want to ask you, absent any mechanism to --
MR KIRBY: I would also say, Said, there’s been an awful lot of international support for the Secretary’s comments, including from Arab countries.
QUESTION: That’s true. That’s true. A lot of international support.
MR KIRBY: So certainly, in your statement, I know there’s been some criticism. There’s been an awful lot of international support.
QUESTION: I understand. And I think there’s been overwhelmingly international support, but we’re talking about this town. This town has been very scarce in giving you the kind of support that you --
MR KIRBY: Well, again, I don’t know that I’d agree with that, but go ahead.
QUESTION: Okay. Fine. Of course, the speech came in the aftermath of Resolution 2334, which said that the settlements were illegal and so on. But I reviewed all the settlements that preceded it, which is 446, 452, 465, 478, and they are all – they all had much stronger language, but the reasons the settlements went unabated and with such vigor is the fact that there was no mechanism. So would you recommend – either would you take some steps now in the remaining time that this Administration has, let’s say between now and the 20th, to perhaps introduce a mechanism to make these – to make good on these UN resolutions? Or would you recommend to the coming administration – suggest a roadmap on how you can come up with the kind of mechanism to give teeth to these resolutions?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any future actions to read out or to discuss on this issue. The Secretary’s speech, which came on the heels of the resolution, was very clear about the concerns that we have about the viability of a two-state solution. And he laid out principles in there in that speech about how – a framework, if you will – about how we can better achieve a two-state solution. But specifically beyond that, I don’t have anything to discuss with you.
QUESTION: Well, you mentioned that the point that he made – and he made six clear points and so on, and in fact they probably find their root in the six points that were made by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton back in 2009. The point is, absent any mechanism or absent the will and the desire to sort of say if you don’t do this, we will do this, as introducing sanctions, whether it’s against Russia or Iran or Iraq and so on – absent that kind of mechanism, what good – the – first, the pronouncements of these principles are or even issuing resolutions at the United Nations is?
MR KIRBY: Well, Said, I think the resolution speaks for itself and I think the Secretary’s comments also speak for themselves, I mean, in terms of our continued deep concern about the viability of a two-state solution. I don’t – I understand your question. I don’t have any additional actions to speak to today. I think we’re all aware about the calendar and all aware that we’re not going to see a two-state solution achieved in the next three weeks. I think everybody recognizes that. And the next administration will have to make decisions and move forward in the way they deem fit.
But the President and the Secretary believed it was important to make clear our concern because we want to see peace there. We – it was important for us to lay out – for the Secretary – excuse me – to lay out what he believed were the proper principles for trying to get there. So I think – I know this isn’t a perfect answer to your question, but I think that’s the best way to leave it.
QUESTION: One last question on this, if I may. Now, we know that the Secretary has always been quite vigorous in pursuing his own initiatives and so on. Are we likely to see anything on his part --
MR KIRBY: The Secretary pursues the President’s initiatives in foreign policy.
QUESTION: Absolutely. I’m saying but also the Secretary has in implementing U.S. diplomacy and U.S. vision. So are we likely to see added impetus, let’s say, over the next couple of weeks to see the Secretary perhaps go to this peace conference in France, if it takes place, and so on, or would you have new ideas and so on to discuss at the – maybe at the UN or other forums?
MR KIRBY: Well, without getting ahead of the Secretary’s schedule or his specific intentions on this or any other issue, I said and I’ve said many times in the last several weeks that until he is no longer Secretary of State, this is an issue that’s going to be important to him and that he is not going to stop focusing on. Last week, you saw that, I think, very clearly and in a very eloquent speech about our concerns over the situation. So I’m not going to speculate one way or another about how he’s going to spend each of the days that he has left in office on this or any other issue, but I can tell you, because I’m confident what I said weeks ago, that until he is no longer in this seat, this will be something that he continues to work.
Dave, did you have something?
QUESTION: Well, that answered my question on Paris.
MR KIRBY: That was your question?
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
All right. Go ahead.
QUESTION: My question is about President Hollande’s visit to Erbil yesterday, and it’s got two parts. First part: The visit was very cordial and President Hollande met with President Barzani and they – President Barzani took the French president to the front lines. He – President Hollande praised the Peshmerga and their fight against Daesh, promised them continued – and promised them continued support. Do you have any comment on this visit of President Hollande?
MR KIRBY: We typically don’t comment on the travel of foreign leaders of other countries. I mean, what I can say is we welcome France’s contributions as part of the coalition to counter Daesh and certainly welcome the continued support that has been voiced by President Hollande for the fight against Daesh there in the region.
QUESTION: Okay. And the second part: In these meetings, the Kurdish leadership stressed the enormity of the burden that they bear in hosting 1.8 million displaced people. And President Hollande himself arrived with 38 tons of aid in his plane. Is the U.S. looking into this issue perhaps?
MR KIRBY: Into the --
QUESTION: The issue of the burden that the Kurdistan region bears because it has – it’s supporting 1.8 million displaced people from other parts of Iraq.
MR KIRBY: It’s not that we are looking into it. We have been concerned with this issue for a long, long time. We continue to work closely with the Kurdistan Regional Government in helping to facilitate the well-being of those displaced people – the people that were displaced internally by Daesh. We also work with other Iraqi provincial governments and the Government of Iraq in Baghdad to better foster the conditions that will allow these people to return home safely eventually.
It’s part of the – it’s all part of the larger effort – I got you, just let me finish, I’m just getting warmed up here – it’s all part of the larger effort to deal with this problem. And we’re mindful of the toll that displaced people do have on local economies and local infrastructure. All of us can do more. I would also remind that the United States has provided more than a billion dollars in humanitarian aid since 2014 alone. We’ve also rallied the international community, other nations, helping secure pledges just this summer of over $2 billion from partners for humanitarian assistance, stabilization, demining, all in the run-up to the Mosul operation.
And we’re actively working with our humanitarian partners, nongovernmental agencies to prepare for the immediate shelter needs of a large-scale displacement or continued large-scale displacements. And just as of late November, approximately 12,200 is the number I’m given here of shelter plots across eight sites remain ready to receive households that were displaced from Mosul and surrounding areas with additional plots now under construction, all with U.S. help and assistance.
So it’s not as if we’re just now looking into this. This is something that we have long been concerned with since the very beginning of coalition operations against Daesh, okay?
QUESTION: But it sounds like despite the U.S. generosity and help with this, it’s not really enough, that more is required, even.
MR KIRBY: As I said, I think, when we addressed this issue more specifically about Mosul not long ago, we’re always analyzing, always assessing, and always willing to contribute more if more is needed. That’s part of – part and parcel of the discussions that we are actively having with local, regional, and national government figures there in Iraq.
Okay. Yeah.
QUESTION: Recently, there was a dialogue held between Russia, China, and Pakistan on Afghanistan – last week. Does the U.S. welcome this dialogue or what are your thoughts about it?
MR KIRBY: I mean, look, we – I’ll say what we welcome is any international effort to help Afghanistan become secure and more prosperous. And we continue to support, as we always have, an Afghan-led reconciliation process. We still believe that’s the right way to go here going forward. That hasn’t changed. And our support for President Ghani and Chief Executive Abdullah remains steadfast.
But nation-states and Afghanistan as a nation-state has every right and every responsibility, quite frankly, for the betterment of their own people to have, whether it’s multilateral or bilateral, discussions with neighboring nations and nations that aren’t neighboring that are interested in the same goals that we are.
QUESTION: So you are saying that without Afghan Government being present there at the discussion – and they did lodge a protest about it as well, their foreign minister, that --
MR KIRBY: I wasn’t – we obviously weren’t there either, so I can’t speak to the specifics of this meeting. But to the degree that countries are meeting to discuss the same secure, safe, prosperous Afghanistan that we all want to see and they can come up with ideas to pursue that, in keeping with mandates from the international community and in particular NATO, those can be – they could be constructive.
QUESTION: One of those efforts with regard to bringing peace in Afghanistan is about the recent deal that the government made with Hekmatyar’s party. And according to some report, the government has sent a letter to the United Nations to remove his name from the terrorist list. What is the U.S. Government’s stance going to be about removing his name from the --
MR KIRBY: Well, sanctions --
QUESTION: Is the U.S. going to be okay?
MR KIRBY: Sanctions committee consultations are confidential and we don’t talk about them, so I have nothing to provide you on that.
Lalit.
QUESTION: Do you know or do you have some readout about Secretary call or talk with Pakistan’s Finance Minister Dar on Indus Water Treaty?
MR KIRBY: I can confirm that he did speak on the 29th of December with Finance Minister Dar. I’m not going to read that out in any great detail. The Indus Waters Treaty has served, I think as you know, as a model for peaceful cooperation between India and Pakistan for now 50 years. We encourage, as we have in the past, India and Pakistan to work together to resolve any differences.
QUESTION: Has the U.S. offered to mediate on this issue between India and Pakistan? As you know, there are some disputes between the two countries on this issue.
MR KIRBY: As I said, we encourage India and Pakistan to work together bilaterally to resolve their differences.
QUESTION: Has he talked to the Indians also on this issue?
MR KIRBY: We’re in regular communication with the Indian and Pakistani governments on a wide range of issues. I just don’t have any more details for you.
QUESTION: But not at his level, right?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any more detail for you.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: I’ve got a small question on the same thing.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: China recently invited India to be a part of the CPEC. What is the U.S. recommendation or suggestion to India on this issue?
MR KIRBY: This is an issue between India and China. I don’t have a U.S. reaction to that right now.
Okay.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: I have a quick question on Egypt --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- regarding Ahmed Maher. He is the cofounder of the April 6 Youth Movement. He was arrested a couple years ago and was supposed to be released today. There has been no word about his release. I wonder if you have any comment on that or if you would urge the Egyptian authorities to release him.
MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything for you on that, Said. We’ll have to take that question and get back to you. I’m just not prepared for that.
QUESTION: Okay, and the other thing is – since we are on human rights – yesterday, the UN Human Rights Council was formed and elected Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, China, Cuba, Iraq, Qatar, Burundi, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirate to the council. I guess you know they pick members on the basis – on the merits of their own record of human rights. Do you have any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: I think I would just – broadly speaking, we’re pleased to be a member to the UN Human Rights Council after completing a mandatory year off in 2016. Since joining it, we’ve made remarkable strides toward helping the council realize its full potential, working in partnership with a wide range of member-states, and often in spite of council members that have poor human rights records.
We’re proud of our successes at the Human Rights Council since we joined the body, including the creation of commissions of inquiry for Syria, North Korea, and Burundi; for country-specific resolutions on Sri Lanka, Iran, and Burma – ground-breaking resolutions that were focused on the promotion and protection of the rights to freedom of assembly and association; and the first ever resolution in the UN system which created an independent expert on violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
So we’re going to look forward to continuing to work with other members of the council to strengthen and protect human rights around the world. And we’re not bashful about calling it like we see it when it comes to human rights violators wherever they sit.
Okay. Steve.
QUESTION: Yes, the deputy commander of Russia’s Pacific fleet in Manila has announced plans to hold joint military exercises with Philippines navy, which I think mostly consists of a couple of old U.S. Coast Guard boats at this point. In light of the security treaty between the United States and the Philippines, does the U.S. welcome this sort of cooperation between the Philippines and Russia?
MR KIRBY: The first thing I would say is that the defense relationship between the United States and the Philippines remains very, very strong. We do have security commitments, alliance commitments that we take very, very seriously. And that defense cooperation has always been provided at the request of Philippine administrations, so our overall mil-to-mil relations remain robust, they remain multifaceted, and that’s the way we want to see it continue.
I think I’d let the Philippine Government and the Russian Government speak to the degree of their bilateral defense relations and how that is taking shape. I’ve said many times – and this is a good example of it – that foreign relations aren’t binary. Right? And these choices that countries have to make are not binary choices, and every nation-state has the right to pursue bilateral relations of its own choosing. And so again, I would leave it to both of their governments to discuss it. What it – what I can promise you is that it won’t affect how we view the importance of our bilateral relationship with the Philippines.
Okay. Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have any update on Senator Cardin’s letter to the Secretary a few weeks ago about the request to formally apologize to State Department personnel who were fired during the “lavender scare” in the 1950s. Any update on that?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update specifically for you on a response to the senator. We are – we will, of course, respond to the senator appropriately about that. Look, we all recognize that this was a troubled part of our history here at the State Department, but beyond that I don’t have a specific update for you. And when we do and when we can speak to it, we’ll let you know.
Michel.
QUESTION: Thank you.
QUESTION: Syria? Any comment on the so-called ceasefire there and the preparations --
MR KIRBY: Well, you said it best – “so-called,” right? I mean, look, as before, we wanted to see this one succeed because we think it’s important to get back to political talks – UN-led political talks. And you’re not going to be able to do that if bombs continue to be dropped on the opposition. So we would have liked to have seen this latest ceasefire be a success.
As far as I know, at least before coming out here, there are areas where it does appear to be holding and there are areas where it doesn’t. That is not at all atypical of what we’ve seen in the past with prior ceasefire/cessation of hostilities attempts, whether we were involved with those announcements or not, and we weren’t always involved with every one in the past. But we sadly have seen this one begin to unravel pretty much as quickly as they have unraveled in the past.
QUESTION: And is there any coordination with the Russians regarding the Astana talks?
MR KIRBY: Not that I’m --
QUESTION: Did the Secretary talk to --
MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: -- Mr. Lavrov?
MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of, no.
QUESTION: Has he spoken with him on any issue related to Syria --
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any recent --
QUESTION: -- in the last few days?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have any recent discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov to read out.
QUESTION: Okay. Are you – I mean, seeing that Mr. Lavrov was the person to call for tit-for-tat with the expulsion of the Russian diplomats – it was Mr. Lavrov that called for a tit-for-tat and it was the Russian president that actually held back. You have any comment on that? I mean, considering that --
MR KIRBY: I’ve seen press reporting on that, Said, but I can’t confirm the veracity of the --
QUESTION: Can you – you cannot confirm that he had, in fact, wanted --
MR KIRBY: -- internal Russian deliberations. Hmm?
QUESTION: He – you don’t have any confirmation that he, in fact, wanted American diplomats to be expelled?
MR KIRBY: No, I can’t confirm what the foreign minister’s views were about the President’s decisions last week. We all saw President Putin’s statement, which you have to assume speaks for the Russian Government. What deliberations and discussions they had internally prior to the – President Putin issuing his statement, I simply have no idea.
QUESTION: And there has been no conversation between the Secretary and the foreign minister on the issue of the diplomats?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have – let me just make sure that I’m checking this correctly here. No, I don’t have any recent calls with Foreign Minister Lavrov to read out with respect to the President’s decisions last week.
We’ll take the last one. Go ahead.
QUESTION: On Syria. Do you have any information about an airstrike that happened today in the north of Syria in Idlib province? The Fateh al-Sham Front is saying that 20 people were killed.
MR KIRBY: I’ve seen some very early press reporting on that. I don’t have any update for you. I was just apprised of that myself just before coming out here. I would encourage you to reach out to my Defense Department colleagues for more information on that, okay?
QUESTION: Fateh al-Sham is the same as Nusrah, correct? So their claim – you don’t take their claims?
MR KIRBY: Don’t take what claims?
QUESTION: I mean, they are the ones that claimed 20 people were killed. You do understand that --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, no, I know that and I know who they are and --
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: -- al-Nusrah is how we still refer to them. I just don’t have any specific information on this, and again, I think the Defense Department is probably better to speak to it than me.
Thanks.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:49 p.m.)
DPB # 1
The Office of Website Management, Bureau of Public Affairs, manages this site as a portal for information from the U.S. State Department.
External links to other Internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views or privacy policies contained therein.
December 21, 2016
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 21, 2016
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 21, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
RUSSIA
SYRIA
DEPARTMENT
SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE/TAIWAN
CHINA
INDONESIA
IRAQ/SYRIA
IRAQ
INDIA
COUNTERTERRORISM
AFGHANISTAN
JAPAN
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
TRANSCRIPT:
2:09 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody. We’ll wait for Lesley to get seated – (laughter) – and begin. I don’t have any opening comments, so we’ll hit it over to you, Brad.
QUESTION: I don’t have a whole lot either, but I did want to ask you about the Kremlin’s remark that U.S.-Russian ties are essentially frozen now --
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: -- or nonexistent, if you will.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have a response to that statement?
MR KIRBY: Yeah. I mean, I don’t know exactly what to make of that comment. Obviously, we don’t agree and have issues with Russia on a variety of issues, but dialogue has not been broken. We talked yesterday about the Secretary and his phone call with Foreign Minister Lavrov after their meeting on Syria in Moscow. The – I think the Defense Department acknowledged earlier today that they too held a de-confliction VTC, as they’ve been doing, with respect to operations in Syria. So certainly on the major issues and the issues that matter most, I mean, there continues to be a dialogue. So I’m just not sure what to make of his comment; that’s certainly not reflective of the way we see communications between Moscow and Washington.
QUESTION: Given that when there was the period that the United States said it was cutting back bilateral engagement with Russia, you still maintained the de-confliction, is there any other process right now you can point to where there is kind of strong U.S.-Russian engagement? I mean, they’ve excluded you just recently from this latest Syrian effort. Is there something going on otherwise that you can point to?
MR KIRBY: Well, I would push back on this idea that they’ve excluded us from Syria. Yes, we weren’t in the meeting in Moscow, but it’s not as if we haven’t had communication with them before and then right after that meeting. So there’s been no exclusion of the United States with respect to the issue of Syria. You’re right; DOD keeps the de-confliction channel open, and they just used it again today as I’m given to understand. And then there’s just a range of other issues where dialogue continues with Russia, even on Ukraine and our concerns about where the Minsk agreement is and their implementation of it. So even on an issue like that where clearly we’re not in agreement on everything, we’re still – there’s still dialogue. And then just the normal give and take on a day-to-day basis. We have an embassy there, an ambassador who engages with his counterparts every day and on all manner of issues.
QUESTION: John --
QUESTION: Mr. Kirby --
QUESTION: Just one more, just – and then I’m done. Since we’re on this broader U.S.-Russian relationship and levels of interaction, has there been any recent conversations involving anyone from the State Department on the cyber matter? Whether it was Mr. Painter or someone else, has there been any cyber talks involving the State Department?
MR KIRBY: By cyber, are you referring to the intel community’s assessment of hacking during the election?
QUESTION: However you want to categorize it.
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any specific bilateral discussions with respect to cyber issues of late. There was, as we said even back in the fall, communications between this Administration and President Putin about our concerns over indications that we had prior to the election that they were involving themselves in cyber issues with respect to electoral confidence here in the United States. I’m not aware of anything in just recent days or weeks.
I would remind, though, that the President did order a review. That review’s ongoing. He wants it on his desk before the end of his term of office, and so we’re – that’s what our focus is on – on cyber issues with Russia specifically, that’s the focus area.
Lesley.
QUESTION: Kirby, can I ask, have you sought clarification from the Russians on what he meant by that statement?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Nothing?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: And --
QUESTION: Isn’t it self-evident – he’s not talking about break in the relations. He is speaking about a freeze, about how the contacts became pretty minimal. I mean, the Bilateral Presidential Commission is frozen and almost all high-level contacts are gone. He is not speaking about break; he is speaking about how it’s all one nosedive.
MR KIRBY: I think I’ve answered the question. You have the foreign minister of their country and the Secretary of State of the United States just speaking yesterday, and you have --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
MR KIRBY: -- let me finish – you have the Defense Department acknowledging that they held another VTC on de-confliction in Syria, what, today, I think. I – as I said at the outset – and maybe you didn’t hear what I said – I said I don’t know what to make of his comments. I think you should ask Mr. Peskov what he means by his comments. What I can tell you is from our perspective, there’s no break in the dialogue and communications are not frozen. That’s not the way we would describe it.
Now, that doesn’t mean that we agree on everything. It doesn’t mean that there isn’t tension between the United States and Russia on a range of issues. Brad talked about cyber. That’s clearly an issue of tension. Ukraine is an issue of tension. What’s going on in Syria and Aleppo – obviously, an issue of tension. But the dialogue, the communications, haven’t been frozen. That’s not the way we would describe it. You should ask Mr. Peskov what he meant by his comments. I’m not clear I understand what he meant by his comments.
QUESTION: I’m not trying to argue this point, and I agree with you, and I agree with him. What I’m saying is it’s – I mean, it’s not a big deal, the way I see it, and this is – this is sort of becoming another stumbling block where it’s not even needed. I mean, something seems to be lost in translation, and maybe I’m wrong.
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I don’t know if you’re wrong or not. As I said, I don’t know what to make of his comments either. But look, there’s a lot of issues where dialogue and communications between the United States and Russia remains important, and for our part, we remain committed to that dialogue and that communication. Again – and it doesn’t mean that we’re not always going to agree and it doesn’t mean that there’s not going to be tensions. But as far as we’re concerned, communications is – are not frozen and dialogue is still happening. Differences are still being discussed, debated, and there continues to be, obviously, issues of concern. But again, I would point you to Mr. Peskov for a greater clarification of what he meant, because it wasn’t clear to me.
QUESTION: Could the sanctions that were imposed yesterday have anything to do with that? Do you think that was a reaction?
MR KIRBY: You’d have to ask Mr. Peskov. I don’t know.
QUESTION: Well, in your assessment – in your assessment, could the sanctions – I mean, there is a great deal of anti-Russian sentiment that is going around town and so on, and there is added sanctions. Could that, in a way, exacerbated the --
MR KIRBY: Said, I really couldn’t get inside Mr. Peskov’s head and tell you that. You’d really have to talk to him.
QUESTION: Okay. Let me just ask you a couple more questions. Can you sort of name a time where the relations between – Russian-U.S. relations have been this bad since the Cold War?
MR KIRBY: I think we’ve actually had this exchange a while ago.
QUESTION: We discussed it – right, right.
MR KIRBY: I’m not a historian to the degree that I can – or to any degree, but certainly to the degree that I can walk you through the history since the end of the Cold War. But obviously, there’s been times since the wall came down that there have been heightened tensions between the United States and the Russian Federation. And there have been times when those tensions have been eased and we have been able to work constructively with Russia on things like climate change and on – like the – on the Iran deal, and up until recently, on Syria. So I just don’t know. I’m not expert enough to tell you that this is sort of the nadir of the relationship between the United States and Russia, and nobody’s looking for that. As tense as things are and can be, we still believe it’s an important bilateral relationship and it’s important to keep working on it.
QUESTION: And my last one on this: I mean, I am an old-timer and I remember during the height of the Cold War there were still delegations being exchanged in science and other areas. Almost on a daily basis, there were things that are going on. There are – today, they’re just not there, or at least we don’t see them.
MR KIRBY: I think I kind of touched on this with Brad. I think that’s not necessarily correct, Said. I mean, there are daily interactions. We do have diplomatic relations with Russia. There are exchange programs. There are Russian students here and American students there. I mean, there is – there are ongoing exchanges and interactions between the United States and Russia, between our two governments, and between our two peoples, and that’s healthy. It doesn’t mean that you’re going to agree on everything, and we don’t. But there’s been no break in dialogue, there’s been no break in diplomatic relations, and those things continue.
Yeah, in the back there, because I’m guessing you’re going to ask about this too, right?
QUESTION: Well, I’m actually going to ask about Aleppo.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: Repeatedly from this podium, when asked about the situation in Aleppo, you have advised people here to turn on their TVs, watch American television. Do you stand by that? Do you still recommend people do that if they want to learn credible reports about what’s happening in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: Oh, I think you’re grossly mischaracterizing my comments. I didn’t say that the only way to get informed about Aleppo is to turn on your TV. I was referring to questions about people dancing in the streets. And I didn’t deny – unlike what’s been out there on Twitter, I didn’t deny that there aren’t images of people that were – may have been happy about what happened in Aleppo. I said I hadn’t seen them, which at the time I hadn’t. But I also encouraged people to look at news coverage – the broad swath of news coverage – about what’s going on in Aleppo. And I think you can see that through the imagery that’s being conveyed, mostly by television news coverage but not only, you can see the devastation that’s being wrought on the people of Aleppo and the innocent men, women, and children that are still there, that still are trying to get out, and still haven’t received any humanitarian aid.
So let’s not oversimplify what I said.
QUESTION: Well, let me ask you, one of the things that was highlighted on American television was these final messages from people, right? They were tweeting out this is their final message, as soon as the city is liberated we’re going to be killed, and these messages turned out to not be final messages. I mean, not a single one of these people ended up being – being slaughtered. So is it still credible to watch American media?
MR KIRBY: Boy, talk about a loaded question. So I don’t know, maybe you have specific knowledge about every person that sent a tweet as --
QUESTION: I have some specifics here if you want to get into that.
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: If you’ll let me finish --
QUESTION: Sure.
MR KIRBY: -- then we can have this conversation. Maybe you have more knowledge about the individuals tweeting. I don’t. And my goodness, if every single person that thought they were going to die at the hands of the Syrian armed forces with the support of Russia didn’t die, you’re going to – are you claiming that’s a bad thing? I think that’s a pretty darn good thing. So I can’t speak for the fact that some may have survived and some didn’t. But the fact that they believed it at the time and were honestly scared about their lives and the livelihoods of their friends and family seemed pretty legitimate to me based on the social media interaction that I saw. If that didn’t happen to them, then I think that’s terrific, obviously, and we should all be rejoicing in the fact that they were able to survive the onslaught and the siege and the surrender tactics of the regime and its backers.
Now, as for the American media, yeah, I think – I think the reporting coming out of Aleppo, some of what we’re seeing is pretty darn courageous reporting, pretty brave.
QUESTION: Well --
MR KIRBY: And I think it’s pretty important. And I always advocate, whenever anybody asks me about media coverage, to read and digest a broad array of media – not just U.S. media but foreign media as well. Take it all in, take all those sources and make your own judgments. But absolutely, I think it’s important that independent, third-party media coverage of whatever the issue is – we’re talking about Aleppo; it could be anything – is vital. It’s vital to the public so that they can better understand what’s going on. So if you’re asking me if I think that following the U.S. media with respect to what’s going on in Syria is important, the answer is absolutely yes.
QUESTION: Well, one of the journalists who was – who was quoted and featured across American mainstream media is Bilal Abdul Kareem. Here he is being interviewed. And this individual, we also have some of his other journalism, and here he is with someone – this is what he, in his words, describes as an explosive vest, and this is an interview he did with a fighter in an explosive vest. He reports, “The fighters are now preparing to leave the city. This is an explosive belt. This is what many fighters are wearing because they don’t feel they can trust the regime.” Is this an unbiased, credible source, this person standing next to what looks like a potential suicide bomber?
MR KIRBY: Look, I’m not going to speak to every single news account that you can sit there and cite, sir. What I can tell you is, as I said, I think the broad swath of coverage about what’s going on in Syria is worth people paying attention to, and people have to decide for themselves what they’re going to find credible and what they’re not going to find credible. But if you’re – if by the tone of your questioning or by the questions themselves you’re trying to imply that what’s going on in Aleppo is more – nothing more than a liberation festival or a parade of proud, happy people that they’re being liberated, I think that is ludicrous and I think it is not backed up by any stretch of normal, independent reporting that we’ve seen coming out of there.
Now, I’m not going to debate each and every account with you. I’m not going to get into an argument over each and every story that’s been filed. But I think the – I think the travesty that has become Aleppo is clearly and should be squarely put on the regime’s doorstep as well as their backers in Russia and Iran.
QUESTION: Now, this man is in an explosive vest --
QUESTION: No one denies there’s carnage --
QUESTION: This man in an explosive vest --
MR KIRBY: Steve. Steve.
QUESTION: He’s not in charge of the American media. Let’s move on.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Steve.
QUESTION: Following up on Aleppo, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says that the city itself is now firmly in the hands of Assad’s troops and the last rebels have left the city. A UN official there in Syria says the evacuations are still ongoing and cannot confirm that the last fighters have left. What information do you have at this hour as to the state of Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: It’s unclear to us as well, so I don’t think we can say definitively one way or another. We have been concerned that UN monitors have not been allowed in to do exactly that, to try to see for themselves what the situation is and who might be left and who might still need to go. So that’s a concern to us. So I don’t think we could go any further than the UN on this. Okay?
Lesley, did you have something?
QUESTION: No, I was going to ask a question as well whether you can confirm – the British Observatory is saying that --
QUESTION: I just want to follow up --
MR KIRBY: I just can’t. I’m sorry.
QUESTION: -- on the carnage in Aleppo, and it is visible by all accounts. But going – moving forward, because there was also a statement made by the United States and other governments and so on about somehow in the future addressing some war crimes and so on. How would you go about vetting the evidence on these crimes considering that it seems to be – at least to all this imagery, it seems to be coming out from certain sources related or connected or somehow reporting on the opposition. How could you at the end say this is unrefutable evidence that war crimes have been committed on this day and in this fashion?
MR KIRBY: I think there is a lot of imagery that I think needs to be part and parcel of whatever accountability measures are taken up, and I think the Security Council is actually talking about this as we speak – about pursuing some sort of measure to ensure accountability, which we obviously would support. But I think it’s going to be, as it would be in any such case, an array – a range of evidence and material that would be collected to be able to provide that assessment.
QUESTION: And on the humanitarian aid, any update on whether humanitarian aid is being --
MR KIRBY: Yeah, I’ve seen no reports of aid getting in. I mean, as of coming out here, I’m not aware of any aid still getting in to the people of Aleppo. Go ahead, I’ll give you one more.
QUESTION: Just one?
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead.
QUESTION: Wow, that’s generous. John --
MR KIRBY: Yes, it is – (laughter) – especially since you’ve already had one and there are people here who haven’t had any.
QUESTION: Okay. All right. I wanted to go back for a second to an interview that Secretary Kerry gave to The Globe, The Boston Globe, in which he admitted that the deal with the Russians over Syria was basically killed here because of the divisions within the Administration. Who was that – what was the agency that killed the deal? Was it the Pentagon?
MR KIRBY: I don’t think that that’s what the Secretary said. I think the Secretary acknowledged what we’ve long acknowledged; there was nothing new in this interview. He’s been very open and candid that even amongst the interagency here in the United States we haven’t all agreed on the way forward in Syria. I’m also not sure why that should be shocking to anybody. Every federal agency has a different view --
QUESTION: I wasn’t saying it’s shocking.
MR KIRBY: Every federal agency has a different view when it comes to those, or at least with respect to foreign policy issues, that have purview over foreign policy issues. And there is a robust debate that happens, and then the Commander-in-Chief makes decisions. And that’s the way our system works.
The Secretary was simply acknowledging what he has long acknowledged, that there was a robust interagency debate about Syria and our policy going forward, and we are where we are. So I don’t read it the way you do, and I’m certainly not going to start today making a habit to read out interagency discussions and who held what position or whose advice and counsel was on a particular side of an issue.
Back here. Yes, sir.
QUESTION: Yeah, I’m wondering if you can give an update on the transition. It’s been a month now since the landing team was named. What’s been going on in general? What sort of information are the team members asking for? And then, has the Secretary had an opportunity to either meet with or at least talk on the phone for an extended period with the designee by --
MR KIRBY: The Secretary’s not met with members of the transition team here. Now, as I said, I’m not going to read out our daily interactions with them. I’m going to still hew to that rule. But I can tell you the Secretary hasn’t met with him. However, and I think you saw this, he did speak to the president-elect’s nominee for secretary of state, Mr. Tillerson. They had a nice chat where the Secretary had an opportunity to congratulate him. And there might be future conversations going forward. We’ll just have to see.
The transition team that’s here at the – I won’t speak for them, but obviously we continue to provide them information and context and material that they are requesting. And I can tell you that having gone through a transition myself a few years ago, without getting into detail I can tell you that the kinds of things, the kinds of material, the kind of information that they are asking for is very much in keeping with what I’ve seen in at least the one previous presidential transition that I lived through when I was at the Pentagon. It’s, again without speaking to detail, very much in keeping, nothing out of the norm, and very much in line with their need to better understand the bureaucracy of the organization that they’re about to lead.
QUESTION: Okay. If I could follow up just briefly, the – do you know when that conversation with Mr. Tillerson was and approximately how long – and I assume by phone; is that right?
MR KIRBY: It was – don’t have the date on it. We did a readout of it. We can get you the date or you can get on our website and find it. I don’t have it handy, but it was just in the last few days.
QUESTION: Okay. And then regarding the types of things that they’re asking for and that they’re in keeping with transitions past, this administration coming in seems to be very interested in finding out what’s been going on with climate change research. Certainly they did at the Department of Energy. How aggressive have they been in trying to find out and ferret out what the Department of State has been doing on that issue?
MR KIRBY: Again, I really want to be careful not to speak for them and for what information needs they have. That’s really for them to speak to in terms of what they’re looking for. We have been very, I think, strict about not reading out their information needs, and I don’t want to violate that today.
I would just – let me put it this way: It is – in my experience, it is normal, it’s expected, it’s not at all unusual for transition team members to want to have a handle on the way the organization is staffed, it’s manned, and it’s resourced, because this is a big bureaucracy. And there’s a lot of people here who work hard every day and do a lot of things that may not be obvious on day one. You have to kind of learn more; you have to spend some time soaking in what people do here. And again, nothing that I’ve seen and nothing that we’re aware of falls outside the lines of what would be a normal – normal inquiries about the institution that they are about to lead and take over. I think that’s really as far as I can go.
QUESTION: Can we go to Asia?
MR KIRBY: Can we go to Asia? Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. Taiwan terminated diplomatic relation with Sao Tome and Principe. So I wondered, do you see any, like, tension escalating between the two side of the Taiwan Strait?
MR KIRBY: I would say we’re aware of reports that indicate Sao Tome and Principe have announced that they’ll end diplomatic ties with Taiwan. For our part, we have a deep and abiding interest in cross-state – cross-strait, excuse me, stability, and we believe that dialogue between the two sides has enabled peace, stability, and development in recent years. We urge all concerned parties to engage in a productive dialogue that supports cross-strait stability and to avoid destabilizing moves, but obviously, this is a decision that Sao Tome and Principe have to speak to.
QUESTION: So do you see the status quo has been changed or not?
MR KIRBY: Hmm?
QUESTION: Do you think the status quos has been changed or not?
MR KIRBY: I think I’ve answered the question.
QUESTION: A follow-up?
QUESTION: The first time Sao Tome has ever been mentioned --
QUESTION: Has been mentioned in --
QUESTION: -- from podium probably ever. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: We have a transmitter, so --
QUESTION: Can I have a follow-up?
MR KIRBY: Go ahead, sure.
QUESTION: Yeah, I just wonder if U.S. has information – this is an effort from China to further isolate Taiwan, or this is independent decision by --
MR KIRBY: Again, this is a question for Sao Tome and Principe to speak to, not for the United States. I’ve already said what our policy is with respect to cross-strait relations and stability, and that hasn’t changed and this is for them to speak to.
Yeah.
QUESTION: And for the Taiwan’s president to transit next month in the U.S., do you have any information?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have anything with respect to travel.
QUESTION: Not yet?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Just a quick – one follow-up to yesterday’s question. Did you talk with a lawyer to find out which specific international law you were referring to?
MR KIRBY: I did not, and I said we can try to get back to you on that. But look, I don’t want to revisit this whole dialogue with you. It’s our property. We got it back. That’s all that matters, and there’s – while I can try to see if there’s some sort of specific regulation here to point you to, it’s really not relevant to the larger discussion, okay?
QUESTION: Can I --
QUESTION: Can I just --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead, go ahead.
QUESTION: A quick follow-up on that, because I actually looked up into UNCLOS, and under Article 95, under Article 96, which actually specify the sovereign immunity, it applies to warships, applies to ships, but not unmanned vehicles. So I would like to seek your definition of the UUV.
MR KIRBY: This has nothing to do with sovereign immunity; this is about a piece of property. Look, if you were playing with a remote-controlled car out in your street in front of your house and I walked up and saw it and decided on my own that it represented some sort of threat to cars on the street, and I just picked it up and took it and walked away, what would you call that?
QUESTION: But I need to identify if that --
MR KIRBY: No, what would you call that?
QUESTION: -- belongs to you first.
MR KIRBY: You would call that theft, and I would have no right to take your toy away, right? Well, we were operating an unmanned, controlled – remotely controlled unmanned vehicle underwater in international waters, doing perfectly legitimate oceanographic research, and the Chinese stole it. They took it. Now, we got it back and the incident is over and we’re grateful that it’s over, and I think we all need to move on. I just really don’t see there – much value here in you and me continuing to debate this. Okay?
QUESTION: Stay in the region?
QUESTION: Asia?
QUESTION: Asia.
MR KIRBY: Yeah, go ahead, Steve.
QUESTION: Do you have anything on this security message from the U.S. embassy in Jakarta saying that Indonesian security officials disrupted as late as yesterday multiple terrorist cells and arrested more than a dozen individuals suspected of planning attacks in Indonesia?
MR KIRBY: I’ve seen those reports, Steve. I’m not – I don’t have any additional information on that and I think I’d point you to Indian authorities for --
QUESTION: This was a U.S. embassy statement on this. You don’t --
MR KIRBY: Oh, I’m sorry, I’m sorry, I misunderstood. I – yeah, I have seen the security message. You’re right. I apologize for that.
QUESTION: Do you have a readout?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have additional details on it. And again, this would be the kind of thing that we would point you to local authorities for anyway.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But I apologize, I didn’t hear your question properly.
Yeah.
QUESTION: You’ve recently done some things that fall into the category of the right thing to do, and we’ve discussed some of this here. Like, for instance, criticizing the Turkish Government when there are really bad abuses of democratic principles and suspending some munitions sales to Saudi Arabia because of civilian casualties. And I wondered with Christmas upon us and the end of the Administration --
MR KIRBY: I’m wondering where this is going. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: It’s going like this, okay: In the category of doing the right thing, the Yezidi victims of genocide, wouldn’t they merit such consideration? Nadia Murad, who suffered terrible abuse from ISIS, addressed the Security Council yesterday. And she pleaded with the council to refer ISIS crimes against the Yezidis to the International Criminal Court. Is that something that you might now be willing to consider doing, referring the ISIS genocide against the Yezidis to the International Criminal Court?
MR KIRBY: First of all, I would say clearly that Ms. Murad has a powerful and she has an eloquent voice. We support her efforts to hold Daesh accountable for their crimes. Like her, we’re appalled by the atrocities that Daesh has perpetuated in Iraq and Syria. And working with our partners at the UN, we are committed to addressing atrocities in Iraq and elsewhere that involve wide-scale killings and injuries, destruction of cultural heritage, forced displacement, forced conversions, and sexual violence toward all Iraqis and Syrians of all backgrounds – including, of course, religious and ethnic minorities such as the Yezidis.
As we’ve said in the past, there is no doubt that those who are responsible for these acts must be held accountable. There are a number of venues at national and international levels in which accountability can be pursued, and our focus right now is on supporting the ongoing efforts of Iraqi authorities to hold the perpetrators of Daesh’s atrocities accountable. In both Iraq and in Syria, we’re supporting ongoing efforts to document, to preserve, and to analyze evidence of atrocities that could potentially serve a wide range of future transnational justice purposes, including but not limited to criminal justice.
QUESTION: Is there really such a contradiction between the national prosecution of criminal acts and the international prosecution of them? Couldn’t you do both, support a referral to the International Criminal Court as well as to let the Iraqis do what they choose to do?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I said, we are in support of the gathering and the analyzing of information that could support one or both. I mean, I think I said that.
QUESTION: But what if – what she is personally pleading for is that the Security Council refer this case to the International Criminal Court. Couldn’t you do that as well as let the Iraqis do whatever they want to do whenever they want to do it?
MR KIRBY: Again, I think I’ve responded here. I – we support holding Daesh accountable and we want to make sure that there is enough evidentiary material there to back up the potential for both national and international venues, and there are several and many, to look at this. And I just simply won’t get ahead of that process or prognosticate about a specific outcome at the UN.
Okay.
QUESTION: Could we stay in the region?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Could you update us on the situation in Mosul? And there are a lot of reports that say the fighting or the effort to liberate Mosul is bogged down. Could you comment on that?
MR KIRBY: As far as I know, and again, I would refer you to my colleagues at the Defense Department who are obviously tracking this much closer than me, that the Iraqi Security Forces continue to work on the campaign to liberate Mosul. We always said that it was going to be long and that it was potentially going to be slow, that it was going to be very dangerous, and it has proven to be all three of those things. I am not aware of daily battlefield progress, so I’m --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: Again, I’d point you to the Defense Department to speak to that, but I’m also not aware of any reports that it has, quote, “been bogged down.” Have there been times where they’ve made more rapid progress than others? Absolutely, but that’s the way things go on in combat. Every day is not linear and every day you are not going to make the same amount of progress as you made perhaps the day before.
We have been nothing but candid about the challenges in liberating Mosul and that’s why it’s taken so long to even get to the point where they can move in there. And it’s likely going to continue to be a fight that is going to change from day to day.
QUESTION: Could you tell us whether Mr. Brett McGurk is in Iraq at the present time because --
MR KIRBY: I don’t have an update on Brett’s --
QUESTION: Because he was supposed to brief us last week and he didn’t, so --
MR KIRBY: Well, he didn’t --
QUESTION: -- on the situation.
MR KIRBY: He didn’t come to the podium because --
QUESTION: Right. I understand --
MR KIRBY: -- Secretary Kerry came to the podium.
QUESTION: -- because the Secretary – right, right.
MR KIRBY: And the purpose of that was the Rewards for Justice program. He did update the White House press corps last week on progress in the counter-ISIL campaign. I’m not aware of his travel right now.
Goyal, go ahead.
QUESTION: India. Two questions, sir. One, if U.S. is following the black market money campaign by Prime Minister Modi in India to clean up the corrupt system in India, and if U.S. is supporting India?
MR KIRBY: We’ve spoken about this one, Goyal, you and I. This is an internal matter for Indian authorities to speak to.
QUESTION: And second, if you can – year in review of U.S.-India relations and what is the future under the new administration and what advice do you think --
MR KIRBY: I think we’ve talked about this one too.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) Well, what advice do you think the Secretary will give to the upcoming --
MR KIRBY: I am not going to use the podium to talk about advice that Secretary Kerry may give to his successor. We obviously believe in the strength of our bilateral relationship with India. It is vital and important on so many different levels and we will certainly do all that’s required of us by the transition team to provide them the context and information about that relationship with India for them to make their own decisions. And I simply wouldn’t predict or get ahead of how the next administration is going to interact with India. But I think, obviously, it goes without saying that because India is such an important partner and such an important power that I see no diminution in the strong U.S.-India bilateral relations that we’ve enjoyed to date.
QUESTION: But let me just quickly --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: -- on this black market --
MR KIRBY: You said you only had two.
QUESTION: I’m sorry. No, because you didn’t answer about the black market money.
MR KIRBY: I don’t think you are sorry. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: What I’m asking you is, sir, that is other relations between U.S.-India affected because of the black market money, and number two, under the table, the transitions are going on between the --
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I think the Indian Government has spoken to this. I think that’s where comment is appropriate on this. And again, I also think I’ve made clear the strength of our bilateral relations and the fact that it exists on many, many levels. And I think I’d just leave it at that.
QUESTION: Thank you, sir.
MR KIRBY: Ma’am.
QUESTION: I have a few for you. So we’re looking at data that shows there’s been a gradual increase of terror attacks since the beginning of the Obama Administration, specifically a spike – 2013, ’14, and ’15. What does the Administration attribute that to, if anything?
MR KIRBY: Well, I haven’t seen that data so I don’t – I mean, I’m not disputing it, I just haven’t seen it, so I can’t speak to the numbers one way or the other. What I can tell you is that certainly over the last two years with the growth of Daesh – ISIL, if you will – in the region, that – and their inertia at the beginning here when they first moved into Mosul and the attraction that they posed to foreign fighters and people that were susceptible to self-radicalization has led to inspired attacks on Western targets, soft targets. We may be seeing exactly that in what happened in Berlin. Of course, the investigation is still ongoing, but it certainly bears all the hallmarks of at the very least an ISIL-inspired attack.
So while I haven’t seen the data and can’t confirm it, I’m certainly not going to refute the notion that there continues to be very lethal, very dangerous, and very real threats from terrorist networks around the world – not just in Western countries but around the world, which is why the United States did fashion and lead a 67-member coalition to counter Daesh and why that coalition has had some success.
Now, have we completely eliminated ISIL from the face of the Earth? No, but they are a radically different group now than they were two years ago, under much more pressure, and we knew even before we started to see that pressure having an effect on them as an organization that they were also going to try to branch out, to metastasize, with cells outside Iraq and Syria, and to inspire foreign fighters and to inspire individuals to conduct attacks on their own.
So we certainly understand real – very well the real threats that terrorism poses, which is again why we continue to work closely not only inside the U.S. Government but with our allies, partners, and friends around the world to beat back this threat. But look, I’m not going to dispute that it’s not still a very real, very dangerous threat.
QUESTION: Okay. And then a spokesman for the Afghan Taliban says they are ready for peace talks with the U.S. if their demands are met. Do you have any reaction to that?
MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen those comments either, but I would tell you that nothing has changed about our view that what we support is an Afghan-led reconciliation process. We believe that’s the right approach. We’ve always believed that that’s the right approach. President Ghani, more importantly, also believes in the criticality of that approach, and that’s where our support will go to.
QUESTION: And if I can move it to Caitlan Coleman and her situation, what agency is leading that effort? What’s being done for her family? Have there been any talks about trading Gitmo detainees as we did with Sergeant Bergdahl?
MR KIRBY: A couple of things. We obviously continue to be very focused on Caitlan’s case, as we are on others, other American citizens that are being held hostage overseas. We remain in close touch with her family. We remain very focused across the interagency – not any one agency but all of us with a purview in this – I’m sorry, with a stake in this – remain very focused on seeing her and her family returned safely. And I think you can understand, or at least I hope you can understand, that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to go into the details of that work and that effort. Okay?
Said, I’ve gotten you a million times. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: I’ve got to ask you --
QUESTION: (Off-mike.)
QUESTION: But I have other topics, John.
MR KIRBY: I know, I know.
QUESTION: I want to talk about the Palestinian issue and Yemen.
MR KIRBY: And we’ll get to you. We’ll get to you.
QUESTION: Okay, take your time.
MR KIRBY: I’m just moving it around a little bit.
QUESTION: I’ll be the last. Give me the last question.
MR KIRBY: I mean, it’s not like – well, I didn’t say you’d be the last question. I’ll come back to you.
QUESTION: I don’t care where I get --
QUESTION: On Japan, I was wondering if you have a statement on the land return in Okinawa?
MR KIRBY: The land return in Okinawa. I probably do, but you’re going to have to give me a second. So we’re pleased to confirm the land return of a major portion of the Northern Training Area in two handover ceremonies with Ambassador Kennedy, one involving Prime Minister Abe in Tokyo on the 21st, and another involving Chief Cabinet Secretary Suga in Okinawa on the 22nd. The nearly 10,000-acre northern training area return is the single largest land return to the Japanese Government since Okinawa’s reversion in 1972. This return reduces the amount of land utilized by the United States on Okinawa by close to 20 percent while ensuring our capability to fulfill our security treaty commitments. The return exemplifies the cooperative nature of the U.S.-Japan alliance and advances our commitment to the realignment of U.S. forces in Japan.
Said, go ahead.
QUESTION: Sorry. In terms of the timing of the return, was that done in light of the --
MR KIRBY: I tried, man.
QUESTION: -- in light of the court decision?
MR KIRBY: I’m sorry?
QUESTION: Was that done in light of the court decision earlier this week?
MR KIRBY: This, as I understand, was very – was a long-planned return.
QUESTION: I’m guessing that the one on the 22nd hasn’t happened yet.
MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t know. They are well ahead of us.
QUESTION: It’s 3:00 a.m. there or 2:00 a.m. there in Japan.
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. If it hasn’t, it’s going --
QUESTION: A midnight handover?
MR KIRBY: If it hasn’t, it’s going to.
QUESTION: All right.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead, Said.
QUESTION: Very quickly – I know you probably don’t comment on visa issuance and so on, but --
MR KIRBY: That’s right, I don’t. (Laughter.)
QUESTION: -- a young Palestinian girl – so let me ask it --
MR KIRBY: So are you sure you want to throw this one out there?
QUESTION: Let me ask it – yeah, exactly. I mean, let me ask it anyway. So a young Palestinian girl – 15-year-old Ahed Tamimi – was slated to be part of the No Child Behind Bars Living Resistance speaking tour that begins on the 15th and she was denied a visa. Is that –because the Israelis have expressed, like, displeasure with someone like her touring the United States and speaking about the occupation – she’s from Hebron. Could that be the reason? Could it be that Israel has requested that such a person should not be issued a visa? (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: As you know, we cannot discuss individual visa cases. In general, all visa applications are adjudicated on a case-by-case basis in accordance of the requirements of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other applicable laws. Do you have another question?
All right.
QUESTION: That’s it.
MR KIRBY: All right, we’ve got to go. Thanks, guys.
(The briefing was concluded at 2:51 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.
December 19, 2016
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 19, 2016
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 19, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
DEPARTMENT
LIBYA
TURKEY/RUSSIA
RUSSIA/IRAN/TURKEY
TURKEY
SYRIA/REGION
IRAQ/REGION
IRAN
FRANCE
JAPAN/CHINA/REGION
DEPARTMENT
GERMANY
TAIWAN
TRANSCRIPT:
2:12 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Afternoon, everybody. I’ll get that there.
I know – or at least I hope – you’ve seen the statement that the Secretary just put out, but if you didn’t, please allow me to reiterate what Secretary Kerry said in his statement, which is that the United States condemns the assassination today in Ankara of Russian Ambassador Andrey Karlov. Our thoughts and prayers are of course with his loved ones, with the Russian people, and with all the other victims who were injured in this attack and their families. We stand ready to offer any assistance that may be required to Russia and Turkey as they investigate this despicable attack, which was, as the Secretary noted, also an assault on the right of all diplomats to safely and securely advance and represent their nations around the world.
On Libya, Saturday – this last Saturday – apologize, the 17th – marked the one-year anniversary of the signing of the historic Libyan Political Agreement in Morocco by the participants of the Libyan Political Dialogue, a broad range of Libyan society from across the country, including members of the house of representatives. The Libyan Political Agreement paved the way for the formation of the Government of National Accord, the GNA, and its presidency council under the leadership of Prime Minister al-Sarraj. During the past year, the GNA presidency council has taken significant steps to combat terrorism, to increase oil production, to improve economic management, and to establish a presidential guard to restore security and governance in Libya. The prime minister has been a steadfast partner of the United States against Daesh. GNA-aligned forces made great sacrifices in eradicating Daesh from Sirte, making Libya and the world safer. The United States supported the GNA by conducting nearly 500 airstrikes in Sirte at the request of Prime Minister al-Sarraj.
Now, in the next phase of implementation of the political agreement, the international community must stand by the GNA as it continues toward national reconciliation and builds consensus for a constitutional referendum and legislative and executive national elections. The Libyan Political Agreement is a transitional two-year road map. It is the responsibility of the GNA and all Libyans to ensure a stable, peaceful transition to an elected, unified government that represents all Libyans.
With that, Brad.
QUESTION: Seen the statements by you and the Secretary. Secretary said he would be willing – the U.S. would be willing to help with the Russians and Turks on any aspect of the investigation. Has he had any preliminary contacts with either side, or has anyone else in this building?
MR KIRBY: No, not that I’m aware of.
QUESTION: Are you worried – let me say – are you prepared for what I think is going to be inevitable claims from some parts of Turkey that either the U.S. is somehow responsible or that its protection of Mr. Gulen is somehow involved in this? I’ve already seen some stuff on Twitter from prominent individuals suggesting this was a Gulenist plot.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Do you have anything to say about that?
MR KIRBY: We – I’ve seen some of those claims as well, Brad. I mean, look, this just happened literally, what, not even hours ago, and there’s an investigation which is just now starting. And I’m certainly not going to and I don’t think it’s helpful for anybody to prejudge the outcomes of this investigation.
We also have to remember that there’s a mourning family out there. There’s a diplomat now who lay dead and a family who is going through an incredibly tough time, as well as those who were hurt and their loved ones. So I think that’s where we need to stay focused, not on needlessly pointing fingers here, until the investigation has had a chance to work its way through.
As for the United States, as I’ve said many, many times, we – as we always have – continue to support the democratically elected government of Turkey, and any suggestion that the United States in any way, shape, or form would be responsible for this act of murder and assassination or any other related activity to the coup – and I’m not saying this one was. I’m just saying that it obviously flies in the face of facts.
QUESTION: And lastly, the Russians say they’re going ahead with this tripartite meeting tomorrow. Has the U.S. reconsidered, or has the U.S. received any invitation to take part in any way, or has it asked to be part of this process in any --
MR KIRBY: No, as far as I know, this is, as you’ve described it, between Russia, Iran, and Turkey. And as we’ve always said, any solutions that can be arrived by any of the parties that can lead to a reduction in the bloodshed, to a cessation of hostilities, to humanitarian aid, and to a resumption of political talks is welcome, whether or not we’re at the table.
QUESTION: But you’re not – so you’re not an active participant in this diplomatic instance, let’s say?
MR KIRBY: No.
QUESTION: Okay.
QUESTION: Do you consider this assassination as a terror act?
MR KIRBY: I think that’s for the investigators to determine. I have seen the press reporting, as you have, of some of the things shouted by the perpetrator, but I’m – we weren’t there and I think it’s really important that we let investigators work through this. I certainly couldn’t rule out terrorism as a motive or behind this. Wouldn’t rule that out at all at this early stage. But I think it’s really important that rather than jumping to conclusions, particularly those of us who aren’t there and weren’t involved, that we ought to let the investigators do their jobs.
QUESTION: Supposedly, the killer was one of the, like, militant supporters, so he was shouting, “We die in Aleppo and you die here.” So are you going to use, like, U.S. influence to let these militants know that this kind of, like, criminal act is unacceptable?
MR KIRBY: Well, sir, I think in your question you’re already making the assumption that it’s, in fact, what’s behind this. And it could very well be. I’m not ruling that out or in; it’s not my place. We need to let the investigation run its course to figure out exactly what happened here, and I’m just not going to jump to conclusions. If it is an act of terrorism – and I’m not saying it is, but if it is – obviously, we have routinely and continue to condemn all acts of terrorism. We condemn this murder. We condemned it very openly, very strongly. You heard the Secretary say so himself – this assassination. I correct myself – this assassination.
But I think it’s really important to let the investigation work its way, okay?
QUESTION: What is the situation at the U.S. embassy right now in Ankara? The State Department Diplomatic Security tweeted it was under lockdown. There’s an advisory sent out to U.S. citizens to stay away from the area.
MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that the situation at the embassy has changed since they issued the lockdown and issued a message urging people to stay away from it. That was an act of prudence, and obviously keeping safety foremost in mind. I don’t have an update beyond that.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: But the embassy wasn’t involved in this. It just is, as I understand it, very close.
QUESTION: It’s fairly close though, right?
MR KIRBY: Somebody told me it’s within a hundred yards or so.
QUESTION: Hundred, yeah.
MR KIRBY: So that’s pretty close and I think that warrants this embassy issuing a security message, but I’m not aware that there’s been any change to their status after they issued the lockdown.
QUESTION: And what are international guidelines --
MR KIRBY: Can I ask who you are?
QUESTION: Excuse me?
MR KIRBY: Who are you?
QUESTION: With Russian TV.
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: TV show in Russia. What are international guidelines in terms of diplomats’ securities? Does U.S. ambassador to Turkey have armed bodyguards or, like, extensional* security in this --
MR KIRBY: Well, look, I think wherever we have ambassadors and consulate officials around the world, they have appropriate security. We never talk about the details of the force protection procedures and processes and resources that we apply in any country anywhere around the world. We obviously take the safety and security of not only our personnel but Americans abroad very, very seriously, and I think I’ll leave it at that. Okay?
Yeah.
QUESTION: Let me ask – the shooter is quoted as saying, “Don’t forget Syria, don’t forget Aleppo. You will not be safe as long as we are not safe.” Is there any reaction to these words from the shooter?
MR KIRBY: I have seen the press reports of those comments, and only the press reports of those comments. As I said, the U.S. State Department is not ruling out the possibility that this is an act of terrorism. We would never do that. But I think we also need to let investigators do their work. It is still very much an active crime scene, and we’re going to let that process proceed before making any conclusions. And matter of fact, it really isn’t for us to make those conclusions. But certainly, without question, we would think that terrorism would need to be one thing investigated, one thing looked into, given the press reporting that we’ve seen about what his alleged comments were. But again, I don’t think it’s helpful for anybody to get ahead of this.
I also think, if you don’t mind me saying, that we all need to recognize that there’s a family going through a very tough time today. This man was assassinated in cold blood, and I think we need to keep their sensitivities and their concerns and their grief in mind right now, and it doesn’t do anybody any good to try to leap two, three, 10 steps ahead of where we are. There is a diplomat who was killed today. There’s a family who’s in grief, and obviously this is an assault, as the Secretary said, not just on this individual but on the act of diplomacy itself. I mean, he was speaking at an art gallery. This is what – part of what diplomats do, in terms of sharing in dialogue and culture. And I mean, there’s an international system here that was also assaulted, and I think we need to keep that in mind.
QUESTION: Now, is the situation at the U.S. embassy connected with the shooting? Is this, like, in response to the shooting, or is there a separate incident?
MR KIRBY: No. I mean, they – the order to lock down and the security message was done specifically because of the shooting at the art gallery. There is no other incident, no other threat at all. This – the embassy did exactly what they should have done given their proximity to the scene.
QUESTION: And will this enhance the possibility of cooperation between countries against terrorism?
MR KIRBY: I think, as we’ve said many times, the international community does share a common threat against terrorism. And to the degree that the international community, bilaterally or multilaterally, can improve cooperation on counter-terrorism efforts, that’s to the betterment of everybody, no matter where you live, no matter what country you call home. What will come as a result of this incident I think we, again, need to wait to see the results of the investigation and see where it leads us. As I said, I don’t think anybody can rule out the possibility that this was terrorism, but we can’t get ahead of what is really only an hour or two old fresh start investigation.
QUESTION: Now, the city that the shooter reportedly invoked is a big point of disagreement between the United States and Russia, correct?
MR KIRBY: It’s a big point of contention between Syria, Russia, Iran, and the rest of the international community.
QUESTION: Okay.
MR KIRBY: Ma’am.
QUESTION: Have we increased security or taken any further precautions for our own ambassadors in the area and other countries surrounding that?
MR KIRBY: Well, as – again, I would say we don’t talk about the specifics of force protection. We obviously take the protection of our embassy personnel very, very seriously all around the world. And you can imagine that in certain places and at certain times that security is adjusted to react to or to reflect whatever the security environment is there. I won’t speculate, I won’t talk in any detail about what if any changes there might be to our security posture in Ankara. I can just assure you and assure the American people that we take the safety and security of our ambassadors and our embassy personnel very, very seriously – as, if I could just mention, we also do take seriously the safety and security of Americans that are overseas, whether they’re on business or on travel for pleasure. That’s why it was so important for our embassy to issue that security message to warn people to stay away because of their proximity to this event.
So it’s something we always look at, we always amend as needed, and we never, ever talk about the details of that.
QUESTION: Syria question.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura said he plans to convene peace talks in Geneva in February.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any comment or statement?
MR KIRBY: We’ve seen those comments, and if in fact it can be done in February, we would certainly welcome that. I think you heard the Secretary talk to this last week, that we want to see a return to political talks as soon as possible. So if in fact it can happen in early February, that would be very welcome.
Yeah. Yeah.
QUESTION: In Iraq, Mosul. Both The New York Times and Washington Post over the weekend reported that there are serious difficulties in the liberation of Mosul, both in the slow pace of the operation and in the humanitarian situation. Do you think that you or at least Baghdad, which had the lead, that you – that the difficulties in Mosul were underestimated?
MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, I would commend the reporting of both The Washington Post and The New York Times. I mean, those are very thoughtful pieces about a very dynamic, very fluid, very challenging environment. And there is no question – I think everybody knew well in advance of the Mosul campaign kicking off that it was going to be difficult and that there was going to be humanitarian needs on a major scale as a result of the campaign.
I remember being asked many months ago about, “Why hasn’t Mosul kicked off yet,” and “What’s the delay,” and “Why aren’t you putting more effort into spurring Iraq to mount that campaign sooner?” And back then we said, “Because it’s going to be hard, and because there’s a lot of planning that needs to go into it” – not just pre-planning, or even implementation, but thinking about post-liberation.
And so there was a lot of that thought and there was a lot of that planning, and there has been a lot of effort put into the humanitarian aspect of this. And just, if you don’t mind, I’ll walk through just a little bit of it.
Now, as I say this, I also want to say right at the outset that we’re mindful there’s still work to be done. We’re mindful that there are still internally-displaced people and that there are still needs that have to be met. I’m not at all suggesting that the reporting is inaccurate. We know that there are many people being pushed out because of the campaign there and that they are, some of them, in desperate need. But there was a lot of thought given to this and there has been a lot of effort applied to it. Since the 17th of October, UN and humanitarian partners have provided more than 130,000 people with USAID-funded relief kits, nearly 163,000 – I’m sorry, nearly 164,000 people with household items, and approximately 185,000 with 30-day food rations. Relief groups have also provided medical care to almost 50,000 people. Since the start of the operation, more than 100,000 have been provided shelter in camps or local communities. There continue to be spaces available – more than 40,000 spaces available – for additional internally displaced people who are – who we do anticipate now being in need as a result of the Mosul operations.
On December 8th, just a little bit ago, USAID-funded UN partners, the World Food Program, UNICEF, UN Population Fund provided food, hygiene kits, water for – purification tablets, water containers, and other critical relief items to more than 42,000 people in eastern Mosul, making this the single largest humanitarian aid delivery in eastern Mosul since the current conflict began.
So, look, that’s just a little bit of the metrics to show the degree to which and the specificity to which these kinds of needs were anticipated. Again, not disputing the reporting, not disputing that more needs to be done and that we’re going to continue to work with the Government of Iraq and with the UN and other agencies to constantly assess the situation on the ground and adjust as necessary.
QUESTION: Well, would you know, then, why there’s space available? The Washington Post says that humanitarian agencies say – in Mosul say they don’t have enough aid to meet the need. Is it that people can’t get out or --
MR KIRBY: Well, as I said, we hold it that there is space available – more than 40,000 spaces available. And if there’s a disconnect, we’ll see what we can do to close that disconnect, to close that seam. And as I also said, we’re in constant communication with the UN and other aid agencies and organizations, and we’ll continue to do that. But I also – but I want to underscore here that while we have thought this through and while we have done these things, we recognize there’s still a challenge out there. We’re not at all rejecting that premise, and we’re not at all saying that there aren’t people in need. Maybe it’s just that they don’t know where to go, so maybe it’s really just an issue of trying to help them get to where they need to be. But we’re all mindful of this.
And as to your question on the pace of it, as we also always said that this was going to be a long, tough fight, it’s proving to be a long, tough fight, and it’s only going to go as fast and it’s only going to go as far as the Iraqi Security Forces are able to do it on their schedule, on their plan. This is their campaign. We’re going to continue to support it.
QUESTION: If I could ask two related questions. Secretary Kerry was in Riyadh over the weekend, maybe even you were with him. Anyhow --
MR KIRBY: No, he’s not back yet. So I know I wasn’t there.
QUESTION: You weren’t with him, okay. But did he discuss the fight against ISIS while he was in Riyadh, or are the Saudis still part of the anti-ISIS coalition?
MR KIRBY: They are. They are a major contributor in terms of humanitarian needs and other such contributions. Certainly, they’re a part of the coalition, absolutely. And yes, they did talk about the counter-Daesh fight. But the primary focus, as I think you saw from the Secretary’s comments himself, was really about Yemen and trying to get to a better outcome there.
QUESTION: Can you inform us what they discussed about the counter-Daesh fight?
MR KIRBY: I think I’d leave it to the traveling team to read out those discussions. And you saw the Secretary’s press conference himself. Obviously, they talked about the need to continue to keep the pressure on Daesh. They talked about the progress that we’ve made against the organization, and yet they also, I think, squarely acknowledged that there’s more to be done.
QUESTION: Can I ask about Iraq?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: Well, could I have just one more on Baghdadi? You’ve announced $25 million for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. What explains the timing? Is it related to concerns about ISIS terrorism that have prompted the Raqqa operation to be accelerated or something like that?
MR KIRBY: The – I’m not aware that there was a particular trigger here. I think Brett McGurk and our principal deputy assistant secretary for diplomatic security talked about this on Friday. But look, I mean, we have to continue to look for ways to put pressure on Daesh. And this is a group that is under stress, no question about it. But this particular decision on Baghdadi is very much in keeping with our broader efforts to continue to try to degrade and destroy this group. And I wouldn't link the timing of the announcement to any one thing. We certainly know he’s still out there. We certainly know that he’s in a leadership role, and that makes him a legitimate national security threat.
QUESTION: So just kind of out of the blue. For your --
MR KIRBY: I wouldn’t say it was out of the blue. I mean, you don’t – we don’t just --
QUESTION: Well, what causes it?
MR KIRBY: I think I answered the question.
Brad.
QUESTION: Over the weekend there were Iranian calls for a P5+1 plus Iran meeting. They’re still quite peeved about the Iran Sanctions Act extension. Is that something the United States would be amenable to?
MR KIRBY: Well, as you know, the joint commission was set up to talk about compliance issues and to provide a forum to do that. So certainly it’s within Iran’s purview to ask for a joint commission meeting to talk about this as they see it in terms of compliance.
What I would just simply repeat is that the Iran Sanctions Act was in place at the time the JCPOA was negotiated and has remained in place. Its extension is not a violation of the JCPOA and does not re-introduce or re-impose any nuclear-related secondary sanctions that were waived on implementation day, nor does it impose any new nuclear-related sanctions. So while we didn’t believe the act needed to be extended, its extension as written in law does not violate it. We stand by that as well as the Secretary’s intention to continue to waive as necessary --
QUESTION: Specific sanctions, yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- those specific sanctions. Yeah. So – but again, look, I mean --
QUESTION: But when is --
MR KIRBY: -- if they call for that, certainly that’s their purview to do it and we would participate.
QUESTION: So you – okay, that was – so do you expect this meeting – well, what level would this meeting be at? Just --
MR KIRBY: I don’t know.
QUESTION: -- technical level?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know. It’s hypothetical at this point.
QUESTION: Okay, and then one other Iran question. There were some pictures – plenty of them, actually – of IRGC Commander Qasem Soleimani in Aleppo. I know this isn’t the first time he’s traveled abroad despite his ban on international travel. Is this something you guys plan to raise at any level, or have you kind of given up on enforcement of this ban?
MR KIRBY: No, we do intend to consult with our partners on the Security Council about how to address our concerns with this. We’ve long said that Iran needs to choose whether it’s going to play a positive role in helping peacefully resolve conflicts such as in Syria or whether it will choose to prolong them. And you’re absolutely right; his travel is a violation. He’s one of the designated individuals. No exemption to the travel ban was sought, and so it does constitute a violation of UNSCR 2231. As I said, we will – we fully anticipate bringing this up inside the council.
QUESTION: The last – well, not the last time, but previously he’s been – there’s been talk of him visiting Moscow, I think confirmation of him at least once visiting Moscow. How did that go when you brought that up in the sanctions committee given that Russia was a member?
MR KIRBY: I don’t have the history here in front of me. Let me see if we can get – I know we raised it, but I don’t recall what the outcome was. We’ll get you that.
QUESTION: Thanks.
MR KIRBY: That’s just a bit of history I don’t have.
Dave.
QUESTION: This morning – well, this morning our time, I don’t know what time it was in France – Christine Lagarde, the director of the IMF, was convicted of negligence in a French court for actions she took – committed before she became director of the IMF. Does the United States still have confidence in her as the leader of an international organization?
MR KIRBY: I think we’re not going to make a judgment here about the court’s decision. I’m not – as I think we are still studying it, and I think I would reserve a statement or a conclusion by the United States until we’ve had a chance to review it further.
Yeah.
QUESTION: Sir, can we go to Asia?
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: So Secretary Russell was in Japan this weekend. I was wondering if you had any readouts.
MR KIRBY: I don’t, actually. You’re right; he was in Tokyo. And as I understand, he’s wrapping up his visit, so we’ll have to get back to you on a readout of his discussions. I just don’t have that here as of the time we came out.
QUESTION: Okay. And also, I hope I can ask about the drone that was seized in the --
MR KIRBY: Okay.
QUESTION: -- South China Sea. So first, are there any, like, updates or --
MR KIRBY: Unmanned Underwater Vehicle.
QUESTION: Yeah.
QUESTION: UUV?
MR KIRBY: UUV. (Laughter.) Not drone, but please go ahead.
QUESTION: Underwater drone, is it? So I was wondering if there’s --
MR KIRBY: No, it’s not an underwater drone. (Laughter.) I think I know what I’m talking about on this one.
QUESTION: (Laughter.) My apologies.
MR KIRBY: It’s all right.
QUESTION: I’m wondering if there’s any updates since this weekend in the talks about maybe getting it back or --
MR KIRBY: I think my Pentagon colleague addressed this just a few minutes ago. As we are given to understand it here at the State Department, there are discussions going on now military-to-military to arrange the return of the UUV. I don’t believe the details of that have been fleshed out, so I’ll let DOD speak to how that’s all going to transpire.
QUESTION: And I was just wondering, so I know you’ve spoken very much about like freedom of navigation. And when it comes to these UUVs, does that – is that included within that definition? Because as far as my understanding, it was, like, taking the – excuse me – taking the temperature of the water and, like, and all that. So does that – is that also freedom of navigation?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think the short answer to your question is yes. I don’t know exactly what you’re asking, but let me just back up a little bit. The device that we’re talking about is – it’s a scientific research device. It’s meant to help us with oceanographic studies. Now, I don’t know – maybe you know more than me. I don’t know what specifically they had tasked this UUV to do on that particular day, but it was doing oceanographic work and only oceanographic work. And there’s many different tasks that you can put these tools to, so again, I don’t know whether it was temperature taking or what. And again, DOD can speak to that.
But it absolutely was operating inside international waters, and it was absolutely performing necessary scientific research, certainly within the bounds of international law. And the absconding with it acted against that very international law, which is, again, why we’re going to get it back. Okay?
Yeah.
QUESTION: So do you see it as, like, raising the tension with respect to --
MR KIRBY: Well, it’s certainly not doing anything to de-escalate tensions. It --
QUESTION: So did you --
MR KIRBY: Go ahead. No, go ahead.
QUESTION: So did you raise your concern with your Chinese counterpart?
MR KIRBY: We – yes, of course, we did. Yes. Ambassador Baucus, our ambassador in Beijing, personally was involved in the discussions which led to our ability now to get it returned, for the Chinese, the PLA, to – to return it to us. So yes, we were absolutely engaged right there at our ambassador’s level.
Steve.
QUESTION: A new subject. I’m wondering if you can confirm this letter from House Democrats to the Secretary of State warning of a potential witch hunt here at the State Department by the incoming administration and advising the Secretary essentially to push back against any potential retaliation against Foreign Service officers, Civil Servants, and other staff, for anything they may have been involved in in working on policy.
MR KIRBY: Well, I can confirm that we’ve – we’re in receipt of a letter from members of Congress that voices their concerns over what they saw as reported requests for names of individuals who work on energy issues, I think at the Department of Energy. And it was an expression of their concern over the possibility that such a request would be made here at State. We’re going to reply as appropriate to those members of Congress. I’m not going to read out that reply here in public, but we certainly understand their concerns and we’ll respond appropriately.
For our part, we continue to work with the transition team that’s here at the State Department to help them prepare for seamlessly assuming the reins here at Foggy Bottom, and that work continues.
QUESTION: Has there been any request here similar to what happened at Energy as far as getting --
MR KIRBY: I know of no such request for lists of people that were involved in energy issues here at the State Department.
QUESTION: Or any issue?
MR KIRBY: Or any issue. I know of no such request for lists of that sort.
Michael.
QUESTION: Last week the Family Research Council president urged the incoming president to remove State Department officials who support the promotion of LGBT rights and reproductive rights abroad. That came out last Wednesday, I believe. Do you have any comment on that?
MR KIRBY: I’ve seen the letter, and I think the president-elect’s transition team already spoke to that, the issue, and pushed back pretty hard, I thought, on the notion that the president-elect would in any way abide by discrimination here at the State Department. So I think I would let them speak to the concerns, as they did, expressed by the Family Research Council since their open letter was addressed really towards the president-elect. But again, I’d point you back to what Mr. Miller said. I think he was pretty succinct, pretty clear, pretty concise about where they stand on discrimination, and I think you know very well our views on human rights writ large not just here at the State Department but around the world.
QUESTION: Thank you.
MR KIRBY: Okay, I’ve got time for just – looks like I’ve got time for two more. Okay, go ahead.
QUESTION: Just real quick, and you might not have something on this. We’re just getting reports of a truck running into a crowded Christmas market – nothing yet? – in Berlin.
MR KIRBY: Why do you look at her and not me? (Laughter.) I’m the one up here.
QUESTION: She’s on her State email. She’s on her Blackberry. (Laughter.)
MR KIRBY: I look at her too all the time. If she doesn’t know it, I don’t know it.
We’ll have to get back to you. Sorry.
QUESTION: Okay, thank you.
QUESTION: And I wanted to ask about Taiwan, because President Obama said last week that as long as the Taiwanese are able to continue with some degree of autonomy, they won’t charge forward and declare the independence. That’s kind of new to us. I mean, usually U.S. says that U.S. does not support Taiwan for independence. Does that imply then the U.S. changed its position?
MR KIRBY: There is no change to our “one China” policy.
Thanks, everybody. Have a great day.
(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.
December 15, 2016
Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 15, 2016
Spokesperson
Daily Press Briefing
Washington, DC
December 15, 2016
Index for Today's Briefing
SYRIA/REGION
IRAQ
BURMA/SAUDI ARABIA
IRAQ
JAPAN/RUSSIA
MIDDLE EAST PEACE
TRANSCRIPT:
2:48 p.m. EST
MR KIRBY: Okay. That was my opening statement. (Laughter.) I don’t think I have anything to top on that, so we’ll get right at it.
QUESTION: Could we follow on Aleppo, then?
MR KIRBY: Can you follow on Aleppo? Sure.
QUESTION: Yeah. He said that we want a united Syria; you want to go back to the Geneva – I assume that’s Geneva I point, back in --
MR KIRBY: When he’s talking about a Geneva is he’s talking about – because that’s where the first and second round --
QUESTION: The talks, right.
MR KIRBY: -- of talks that occurred.
QUESTION: I understand, but there are – there’s a Geneva understanding that was back in 2012, which stipulated certain points to get the process going. So I assume that he’s talking about that.
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: But what I wanted to ask you specifically is that if – if, let’s say, when you talk about a political process and a united Syria, if the regime chooses or Bashar al-Assad chooses to be a part of this process and run in a fair and transparent elections and so on, would he be allowed to? Because you guys have committed yourselves in the past to the fact that he lost his legitimacy to govern.
MR KIRBY: Yeah. Well, I think we still believe that, Said. And as we’ve said before, those are exactly the sorts of issues that need to be hammered out in political talks, is what this transition looks like and what an election looks like. And that’s why it’s so important to get the regime and the opposition together to talk.
QUESTION: So you – I understand, but I still --
MR KIRBY: We’re not going to go in – we’re not going into this proscriptively, Said, and laying out what it all has to look like before they’ve even had a chance to talk.
QUESTION: Because it is obvious that the regime – not necessarily Bashar al-Assad – but the regime itself represents a good portion of Syrian – of the Syrian people. I mean, there are minorities that look to them for leadership. There are – there’s a large portion of the Sunni population and many others, Christians and so on. So they would want that kind of political entity to represent them.
MR KIRBY: Well --
QUESTION: Would they be allowed? Should they be allowed as part of any political process that is fair and transparent?
MR KIRBY: Should who be allowed?
QUESTION: The regime, the Baathist regime of Syria.
MR KIRBY: There is – there’s no question that in political talks, should we get to that point, that the regime would be represented in that. And there’s – you can’t have political talks and – to lead to a solution without the regime being represented, as they were in the first two rounds. And you talked about a large part of the Syrian population that may be supportive of the regime. Let’s also talk about the much larger portion of the Syrian population that has been killed, injured, maimed, forced to flee their homes and businesses – in fact, forced to flee the country. Some 4.8, maybe more, million people have been sent into refuge outside Syria.
Now, one of the things that we have said throughout our discussions about what the transition process should look like and how elections ought to be held is that we believe it’s very, very important that the diaspora, those that have been flung outside the country because of the brutality of their own government, ought to have a chance to cast their ballot, to have a say, to let their voice be heard. So again, we’re not going into this proscriptively by detail. That’s the whole reason you want to have talks, okay?
Carol.
QUESTION: John, I can’t help but feel like we’ve been here before. Do you have any reason to believe that as long as the words of the Secretary and the rest of the world fall on deaf ears in Damascus that there is anything in the dynamics on the ground that will make this any different than what we’ve heard weeks ago and months ago?
MR KIRBY: Well, certainly, I think we’re all mindful – and I think you could hear it in the Secretary today – we’re all mindful that we have said these things before. We have made these same arguments. We have urged the same sort of restraint and dignified approach on both the regime and its backers to little avail. We’re exceedingly frustrated by where we are. Nobody wants to see what we see coming out of Aleppo specifically.
But as to your exact question on what – can I predict a change? No. No, and I wouldn’t even attempt to. But this much is clear, Carol: If things don’t change, if we can’t get back to discussions in Geneva about a political transition, a peaceful transition to some sort of democratic government in Syria, then the war goes on. And sadly, regrettably, we might be up here talking about another community, another city, that’s facing slaughter. That means more extremists are going to be drawn to Syria. It means more refugees, more internally displaced people as well as refugees out the country, which will continue to strain the resources of countries like – nations like Turkey and Jordan and Europe. And it means that the opposition will continue to fight; the civil war will not end. And I can’t – it’s hard to imagine how that can be seen – that outcome – those outcomes, I should say – can be seen as in the interests of anyone, including Bashar al-Assad.
QUESTION: But is there anything happening on the ground? Is there any reason to believe that this time might be different? Is this say nothing or forever hold your peace?
MR KIRBY: It’s not going to be forever hold your peace if we still don’t – if we don’t get to better outcomes. I think you know Secretary Kerry well enough that for every second that he’s in the chair, he’s going to be continuing to try to get a political transition in Syria on the way. There’s absolutely no question about that. But I mean, I think it – I think we just have to take this one day at a time.
Now, as – talking about this day, as he said to you, there has been some positive movement, and it would be remiss of us not to recognize the fact that there are buses that have moved into Aleppo to move people out. And indications are that the first to move out were those who were injured, hurt, sick, and not necessarily mobile, and they were monitored and escorted by Red Crescent personnel. So that’s not – that’s worth recognizing, that today we did see some people get out safely and securely. We need to see that continue.
More critically, what we need to see is a cessation of the violence in Aleppo, because as soon as this ceasefire was announced just, what, 48 hours ago, it was almost as immediately broken. So we’ve seen some positive steps today, and we’ll just have to stay at it.
QUESTION: John --
MR KIRBY: Abigail.
QUESTION: -- following up on what you said, that there will be more cities where this happens, are there any plans underway for preventing this from happening in Idlib or wherever it is that the people who are being removed from east Aleppo are heading?
MR KIRBY: Well, if you mean that we’re engaging our partners and relevant parties to this conflict to try to forestall that kind of thing, yes, of course, we are. I can’t predict. I’m just saying that that’s the logical outcome because Aleppo’s not going to be the end. Even the dictator Assad said that, that the – that taking back Aleppo wasn’t going to end the war, except when he says it it has a much more – obviously a much more dark connotation there. I don’t know. But we – but what we do know is that unless we can get back to the table and try to get some sort of political transition in process to try to offer a way through to end the war diplomatically, it will continue. And since we believe that, you have to assume that it will continue on the streets of other cities, other towns, other communities. I just don’t know where or when that might be.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John?
MR KIRBY: Yeah.
QUESTION: John, and the Secretary mentioned that everybody’s on board for negotiations except the regime – Assad regime – and you also now are saying the same thing. But who has approached the regime? Has – have you talked to Russians? Has this regime rejected an offer to be on board, or is it still up in the air? Have they been approached formally by – through Russia? Because --
MR KIRBY: Of course, they’ve been approached through Russia. We don’t have direct communications with the Assad regime --
QUESTION: Yeah. That’s – yeah.
MR KIRBY: -- but Russia does. They have the most influence on them. And yes, we have pressed upon them to press upon the Syrians to come back to the table to try to have some kind of meaningful political transition. And as the Secretary said, they have thus far not only proven unwilling to do that but proven all the more brutally willing to kill their own people.
QUESTION: John, do you have any direct communication with the groups left in the small part of Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: I don’t know what the status of direct communications are with the opposition fighters in Aleppo. I don’t think I have that clear a picture. We obviously have contacts with and communication with some opposition groups. There are other nations in the region that are in closer communication with yet other groups. I don’t know exactly how many or who the opposition are left in Aleppo, so it’d be difficult for me to answer that question.
QUESTION: So to clarify the position of U.S., the Secretary Kerry said that, “if Aleppo falls.” So do you believe that there is still an opportunity for the opposition groups to hold this small part --
MR KIRBY: It would be – he – the Secretary’s right. I mean, the – I think we don’t believe the entire city has fallen yet, but it is certainly on the brink of doing that. I mean, we’re realistic, we’re pragmatic about that. And that’s why, because we are where we are, that’s why we’ve been working to get civilians as well as opposition members out of there safely and securely. I can’t predict when that small enclave may or may not be taken or what that’s going to look like or how hard it’s going to be fought for, but by all – I mean, by just about any measure, Aleppo has almost completely been taken back.
QUESTION: But as far as I understand, the evacuation means the fall of Aleppo.
MR KIRBY: The what?
QUESTION: The evacuation of these fighters and the civilians in these small parts means --
MR KIRBY: I think we’re all facing the reality that that’s what’s going to happen.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: I mean, I’m not sure I understand what the point is. I mean, I think we all recognize – nobody’s looking at what’s going on in Aleppo with rose-colored glasses here. I mean, the city is almost totally now been taken by the regime. I mean, we recognize that and they were – and the Assad regime was able to do that with the help of external actors, including Russia and Iran, and there’s no disputing that either. And sadly, hundreds of thousands of people have suffered, many of them innocent people – men, women, and children.
And that’s why, because of where we are with Aleppo, because the situation is so dire – and first of all, that’s one of the reasons why the Secretary came out to talk to you directly, because of the situation that we’re in right now and because of the need to try to save whatever lives are left in Aleppo that we can – that can be saved, and to allow the opposition to get out safely with their light weapons.
QUESTION: So the status of this enclave, is it – is there fighting going on now or are they being evacuated? Are they part of the cessation of hostilities or the ceasefire?
MR KIRBY: First of all, I don’t know --
QUESTION: Because I saw on some – footage of these trucks, convoys, going through areas that is under Syrian Government control and moving north towards the countryside and to Idlib. So --
MR KIRBY: I don’t know the status of fighting in this --
QUESTION: Right.
MR KIRBY: -- small area, but we have reason to believe that there could be opposition as well as innocent civilians there, and we’d like to get – we’d like to see that we could get those people out safely and securely. What the regime will do, I couldn’t possibly predict.
QUESTION: Because the implicit message – and when you say “if Aleppo falls,” the implicit message is that it may not, which means that these fighters will hang on or they will stay where they are, which is, I guess, in contradiction with the terms of the ceasefire as we understand it, right?
MR KIRBY: Look, again, Said, I don’t have perfect visibility into what – in what’s going on in this small area. I mean, Aleppo, for all intents and purposes, has been taken back by the regime. We recognize that. And our focus right now is more on trying to save the lives that yet can be saved and trying to get people out that can and will get out safely and securely to other locations, to aid and assistance – food, water, and medicine that is waiting for them.
Nick.
QUESTION: I just want to follow on something the Secretary said. He said, “Hopefully people will put actions where the words have been.” We’ve heard a lot of words from him, a lot of indignation. Is the United States prepared to take action aside from calling for political talks to halt the violence in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: What sort of action do you – are you referring to?
QUESTION: Be any action – is – that’s what I’m asking you. Is the U.S. prepared to take action beside – I mean, the Secretary said himself, “Hopefully people will put actions where the words have been.” What actions --
MR KIRBY: Well, he’s referring to – he’s referring to the actions and the responsibilities that are incumbent upon the regime, Russia, and Iran specifically. Those are the three parties here who have in the past said that they favored a peaceful solution, that they favor diplomacy, and have proven quite the contrary. Those are the individuals.
QUESTION: The --
MR KIRBY: That’s where the – hang on a second. That’s where the responsibility lies. That’s where the failure of leadership is. Now, to your question, the – yes, the short is answer is yes, the United States will continue to act to do whatever we can to try to get a cessation of hostilities in Syria and get a return to political talks. And we’re going to do that through hopefully the support of the international community and continued diplomatic efforts.
Now, we’ve talked a lot – so I get – the implication in your question I understand very perfectly, the discussion of military options. And while discussions about options and alternatives always remains a live issue inside our government, we – those sorts of options have been carefully considered. They have been discussed thoroughly, and even at the request – or I’m sorry, at the advice and counsel of our nation’s top military leaders, it has been – the decision has been made that those are not options that will get us to the end we seek, either in terms of risk and resources and cost, but also to potential unintended outcomes and consequences in Syria that could actually be worse for the Syrian people. So it’s not like those things haven’t been thought about, and it’s not like they don’t continue to be thought about, but as the President said, there are no options that are better than a diplomatic one and one that involves getting the opposition and the regime to the table to try to talk about a political transition.
So I just want to be clear what – and I’m not – Nick, I’m not picking on you, but when you say “act,” we are acting. We have been acting. We have been leading. And the word “act” doesn’t necessarily have to mean anything other than diplomacy, although it can. So we are, we very much have taken a leadership role. It was Secretary Kerry who led the formation of the International Syria Support Group. It was the United States who led efforts inside the UN to get that Resolution 2254 into place. It was the United States which tried to work this out bilaterally with Russia, and then when that failed because Russia wouldn’t meet its commitments, it was the United States who fashioned together a smaller multilateral effort that we were talking about in recent weeks.
So we’re very much going to stay committed on this.
QUESTION: So just a quick follow-up on that.
MR KIRBY: Sure.
QUESTION: I mean, you – he compared it – from the podium, he compared Aleppo to Srebrenica. You have a member of – Samantha Power literally wrote the book on the responsibility to protect. Does the U.S. believe it has a responsibility to protect people in Aleppo?
MR KIRBY: We absolutely believe we have a responsibility to try to protect the innocent from slaughter, absolutely we do. And we have been acting on that responsibility for now, what, more than eight – five years, but more specifically for the last 18 months to two years to try to get a peaceful solution to the conflict. Coming from my background and then coming here, diplomacy is action. Diplomacy is leadership. Diplomacy is a choice, and it is often a more painstaking choice. It is often a slower choice. And as I’ve witnessed myself from being in these discussions, it is a – it can be in many ways a much more challenging choice to make. But it is a choice, and it is action, and it does connote leadership. And the United States has been leading in this – very much leading in this effort.
Now, Nick, to be honest and fair, and I think you can hear it in Secretary Kerry’s voice, nobody’s happy. Thus far, diplomacy hasn’t gotten us where we want it to go. We recognize that this diplomatic approach has fallen short of the outcomes that we want it to achieve, that we seek. But that doesn’t mean that it shouldn’t still be pursued. It doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t still lead, and act, and discuss, and debate, and try to get better outcomes, better decisions, better changes in the calculus of some of the parties in terms of the way forward. Because as I said – I think it was to Carol – it’s difficult to see that the alternative – which is the inability to make the right decisions by Russia, Iran, and the regime – is in their actual long-term security interests. Because what happens is the war just continues, and the bloodshed continues to happen, and extremists continue to be drawn in.
Just this past week, Palmyra was retaken by the Islamic State, a city that had – to great ballyhoo had been liberated back by the regime with Russia’s help, and they lost it. And I think that says something about their, quote/unquote, “stated commitment to defeat terrorists” on their own soil.
So again, we believe that through our diplomatic leadership, we are acting on behalf of the Syrian people and that we do shoulder and take that responsibility very seriously. But the other thing that I can – and I know I’m rambling here, but I want to get to the core of your question. The other thing that Ambassador Power said clearly was it’s up to the international community as well to continue to shoulder and bear that responsibility. It doesn’t – I’m not at all shrugging off U.S. leadership or our role. We very much are aware of our responsibility here too to continue to lead these efforts. But so too, as the Secretary said, do we need the international community on board as well.
Carol.
QUESTION: John, when the Secretary spoke with Foreign Minister Zarif regarding the Iran Sanctions Act, surely they must have talked about Aleppo. Can you tell us what was said and if there was any attempt to somehow leverage them, to pressure --
MR KIRBY: I’m really not – I’m not in a – I’m not at liberty to read out specific discussions with Foreign Minister Zarif right now. Obviously, the Iran Sanctions Act and the extension was the core topic.
QUESTION: Is it a proper analogy to make with – between Aleppo and Srebrenica? Is it – I mean, how do you make that analogy? What is the yardstick?
MR KIRBY: I think – look, Said, I think it’s an obvious analogy to make given the level of slaughter that we’ve seen and the brutal, indiscriminate manner in which innocent people have been in some cases executed right in the streets. No historical analogy is perfect, but I think I can definitely see – and I was alive and remember that, those events as well – there are parallels in terms of the brutality of one group to another and with – along and with sectarian lines and sectarian influences.
Yes, ma’am.
QUESTION: Different subject. This is regards the situation in Iraqi Kurdistan. Senior Kurdish officials, including the KRG prime minister today, have complained about the continued PKK presence in Sinjar. They say that the PKK is blocking the Yezidis from returning to their homes and rebuilding their communities. What’s your view of that situation?
MR KIRBY: Well, I haven’t seen those remarks, so it would be difficult to provide a specific comment on it. What I can tell you is – and I think you know – I mean, we continue to believe that the PKK, which is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization, should have no role in Sinjar, and we regard their presence there as a major obstacle to a reconciliation and to the return of internally displaced people. We urge all groups, including the KRG, to facilitate political reconciliation so that these internally displaced people can return and the traumatized communities in that region can rebuild. We also urge continued close cooperation between the central government in Baghdad and the Kurdistan Regional Government to defeat Daesh and to resolve any other outstanding issues between them.
QUESTION: So if I have represented his comments correctly, then you’re essentially in agreement with him?
MR KIRBY: I think I’m going to let my statement stand the way it was. I haven’t seen the – I haven’t seen those comments. I was simply stating to you what our policy is with respect to the PKK and Sinjar.
Steve.
QUESTION: Earlier today there was a report released by the International Crisis Group indicating that Rohingya from Saudi Arabia are directing an insurgency in Rakhine state in Burma, Myanmar. We got a statement earlier today from this building referring us to that report, not taking any contention with the conclusions of Burmese intelligence services also telling the VOA Burmese service that this concurs with their intelligence. I wonder if you could elaborate on the reaction to this. And also if this is happening – being directed out of Saudi Arabia, do the Saudis bear some responsibility in looking into this?
MR KIRBY: Sure. What I can tell you is we’re aware of the report and we’re actually reviewing it right now, so it would be inappropriate and premature for us to make any judgments or statements about individual findings. In general, obviously, we work routinely every day with allies and partners and friends all over the world to counter violent extremism. And the threat of violent extremism, wherever it is and it’s in many places, is something all of us, all governments, can and should pay attention to trying to combat. But again, I’m not in a position right now to make any comment on specific findings in the report.
Yeah.
QUESTION: John, as a follow-up to Sinjar question, there is a group – you mentioned about the PKK presence there. There is a group which is using the name of “Sinjar Protection Units” in Sinjar. I mean, they are affiliated with PKK, but there is also another group like PYD. So you see for example PYD and PKK two separate groups, but in Sinjar, you say – you see – is it same organization? You call them PKK instead of “Sinjar Protection Units?”
MR KIRBY: What I said was we continue to hold the PKK as a terrorist organization and they shouldn’t have any role in Sinjar. And that’s our point. And our assessment of the PKK hasn’t changed, and I have no updates to give you in terms of our view of the PYD as a separate entity.
QUESTION: No, the thing is they are using the name of “Sinjar Protection Units” instead of PKK. They have own flags, they have own – I mean, the organizational chart, et cetera, differently from PKK.
MR KIRBY: What’s your question?
QUESTION: So you see them as PKK instead of “Sinjar Protection Units?”
MR KIRBY: As I said, the PKK is a terrorist organization. We don’t believe they should have any role in Sinjar. I’m not going to get into intelligence assessments or analysis about how they may be organizing themselves or branding themselves.
QUESTION: So just trying to understand the two different approach --
MR KIRBY: I know.
QUESTION: -- for Syria and Iraq.
MR KIRBY: I know. I think I’ve answered the question. Let’s take a couple more.
QUESTION: Can we stay in the Middle East?
MR KIRBY: Let me get one in the back here and then I’ll come to you, and you’ll be the last question, okay?
QUESTION: Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Very good.
MR KIRBY: Go ahead.
QUESTION: I was going to ask about Japan, the Abe-Putin meeting in Yamaguchi. They agreed to start 2+2 talks with their foreign and defense ministers, and they agreed to talk about some economic cooperation between the Kuril/Northern islands. Do you have any reaction to the meetings? Are you worried that this can erode the G-7 sort of front against Russia?
MR KIRBY: Well, as I said yesterday, sovereign nation -states determine their sovereign foreign policy agenda and their schedules and their visits, and we’re not in a position to pass judgement on this meeting or the contents of it. I think it’s for the leaders of those nations to characterize what they discussed and the tone, tenor, and whatever decisions or joint priorities may have come out of that. We believe it’s important for nations – certainly Pacific nations, and both of them are – to have meaningful dialogue and discussion and improved bilateral relations. All that is to the betterment of the safety and security, stability of the region. But I’ll leave it to those foreign leaders to characterize their discussions.
Said.
QUESTION: I have a very quick question on a Palestinian issue. A couple days ago I asked you about two hospitals that were on the verge of closing down, because the PA is not paying up its obligation to these hospitals to the tone of about $15 million. I wonder if you have any comment or any information on that.
MR KIRBY: We are concerned about the situation with the al-Mutala and al-Maqasid hospitals.
QUESTION: Yeah.
MR KIRBY: In Fiscal Year 2015, the United States contributed $35 million towards East Jerusalem hospitals, and we plan to continue providing support subject, of course, to available funding. And I just don’t have an exact amount at this time.
QUESTION: Do you believe that PA is sort of shirking its responsibilities toward these hospitals?
MR KIRBY: Well, I think I’m going to leave my statement as it is.
Thanks, everybody. Have a great afternoon.
(The briefing was concluded at 3:17 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.
U.S. Department of State's Blog
- U.S. Department of State's profile
- 17 followers
