U.S. Department of State's Blog, page 8

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 14, 2016

John Kirby





Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 14, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA/REGION



CHINA/REGION



INDIA/REGION



IRAN



SYRIA/REGION



TURKEY/REGION



JAPAN/RUSSIA/REGION


TRANSCRIPT:

2:07 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Hello, everybody.

QUESTION: Hello.

MR KIRBY: Did I interrupt something? You guys want to finish? No?

QUESTION: That was a side conversation I was not a part of. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: It sucks being left out, doesn’t it?

Look, I do want to start by addressing what continues to be a dire situation, obviously, in Aleppo. And I know you guys are following all that. Today the Secretary has spoken to Foreign Minister Cavusoglu of Turkey; he has spoken to Foreign Minister Lavrov of Russia; he has spoken to Foreign Minister al-Thani of Qatar; and there may be a discussion later today with the UN Special Envoy Staffan de Mistura.

In all of these conversations, the Secretary has stressed the need to continue to try to stop the bloodshed and the violence through a meaningful ceasefire, and he noted that whatever was announced yesterday obviously didn’t survive very long due to the regime and to militias and fighters that are backed by Iran violating it. He also continued to stress the desperate need for humanitarian aid to get in and for the establishment of humanitarian corridors for people to get out and to be able to get out safely. None of those things obviously have happened. And so he is going to continue this kind of diplomatic engagement to try to achieve a better outcome for those people that are still left in Aleppo and want to get out, and of course, the opposition as well.

The other thing that he stressed was that it is more imperative than ever that we begin to get a process in place to allow for the resumption of political talks between the opposition and the regime, because we continue to believe – the Secretary stressed against in all these conversations – that the only way to solve the civil war is through a political solution; that more violence, more bloodshed, siege, starvation, and surrender tactics such as what we’re seeing in Aleppo is not only not the right way to end it, it cannot be put to an end that way; that this will be nothing more than the continuation of the war in Syria – the attraction to Syria of more terrorists and extremists, the flinging into refuge thousands and thousands of more people, and of course, the continued fighting by the opposition against the regime.

So he’s going to very much stay engaged on this going forward. While we cannot deny that the facts on the ground indicate that Aleppo is nearly all now taken by the regime, we also cannot deny the simple truth that as we – as I said yesterday, the end of the siege in Aleppo is not the end of the war in Syria. And so again, the Secretary is very focused and will stay focused on ending that war through the best possible way, and that is through a resumption of political talks in Geneva where the opposition and the regime can sit down and try to hammer out a political transition that puts in the hands of the Syrian people a government and a country that is unified, pluralistic, safe, and secure.

So again, that’s what I wanted to start with today. Brad.

QUESTION: So on Aleppo. We’ve heard a lot of moral outrage from this podium, from the Secretary, from the U.S. – the UN ambassador yesterday, from the White House. What is the goal of all of this? I mean, we’ve been hearing the same message for many months; in fact, for years. Yet nothing has really changed to stop it. So what is the goal right now of kind of laying all the blame on Russia? What are you doing differently to stop the war now?

MR KIRBY: Well, the – I don’t know if you meant it this way. It’s not like the goal is to lay the blame on Russia. The responsibilities are rightfully being applied to Russia because they’re the country with the most influence on Assad. We’ve seen it when they can and are willing to use that influence; we’ve seen it work positively. And just as much as recently, we’ve seen when they’re not willing to do it, we end up where we are right now in Aleppo. So it’s not about – it’s not just about laying responsibility where it belongs. And the outcome that we want is the same outcome, frankly, that we’ve been trying to achieve now for better than 18 months, which is political talks that can lead to a meaningful transition in Syria. And again, in all of the Secretary’s conversations today, that was front and center.

QUESTION: Right, but you failed repeatedly doing the same thing over and over again, which is a combination of trying to bring together people in some sort of talks with a sort of imperfect ceasefire, and then when things go badly, you get really angry and accuse them of war crimes or crimes against humanity, and then nothing ever changes. You haven’t succeeded once. You’ve talked about successes sometimes with Russia; it looks to everyone else like tactical retreats or momentary pauses. So what are you doing differently to prevent more of the same?

MR KIRBY: Well, the failure is in the belief that this war can be solved militarily. And the failure is on Russia for not putting the proper pressure on the Assad regime to stop the brutality, the gassing, the surrender, the starvation of their own people. That’s the real failure here. The failure is on the part of --

QUESTION: You don’t think the U.S. has failed?

MR KIRBY: -- the failure – hang on a second, I’m not done. The failure is on the part of the regime and its backers, including Russia and Iran, for the way they continue to try to find a military solution to what should be a political one. That’s the real failure here, and the Syrian people are the ones caught in the crossfire, quite literally.

You talked about the United States failure. What I would say is the international community has remained focused on trying to bring about a better outcome in Syria. And yes, the United States is a leader in that effort.

QUESTION: You speak for the United States and you have a specific – as the most powerful country in the world, have a specific responsibility in the world, and you can push that over to the international community --

MR KIRBY: I’m not.

QUESTION: -- but the United States has failed in this. Do you disagree?

MR KIRBY: I – what I – what I disagree with is where the failure lies. The failure lies on the part of the regime and its backers to act with any sense of moral standards for human behavior.

QUESTION: But you countenanced that.

MR KIRBY: No, no, that’s the failure. That’s the failure. Who --

QUESTION: Yeah, but every time they do that you reach out to them --

MR KIRBY: Brad, Brad, Brad.

QUESTION: -- and try to engage them in a process.

MR KIRBY: Brad, Brad, let me finish. I’m not at all saying that we’re content with what the results have been of better than 18 months of negotiation and discussions. If – the Secretary is – would be the first to tell you that he’s enormously frustrated that we are still where we are with respect to what’s going on on the ground in Syria. Nobody’s happy about that. And would we have preferred that any number of the communiques that we negotiated with a UN Security Council resolution that was signed on by Russia as well would have led to a better, safer outcome in Syria? Absolutely.

So nobody’s happy about this. And I’m not pushing it off on the international community at all. I’m simply making the point that it’s not just the United States that wants a political solution. And as I said yesterday, and I’ll repeat it again today, I’ve – we fully own the fact that we have been a leader in this effort. It was the United States who led the development of the ISSG. It was the United States who led the process to get us to a UN Security Council resolution. It was the United States that tried to lead both bilateral and then multilateral negotiations in recent weeks to try to bring about a ceasefire.

Look, we’re – everybody is enormously frustrated about where we are, and nobody’s happy, and that’s why the Secretary is going to continue to work at it.

QUESTION: Well, let me ask my last question, though.

MR KIRBY: But – wait. But lastly, your question – what are you going to do differently?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: We’re going to continue to try to get a political outcome that is – that will serve the people of Syria that – and what we’re going to try to do is continue to prove the point that – I think by “different” you mean military – that that’s not the right approach. That’s not the right approach.

QUESTION: I didn’t say military, so don’t bring the strawman into this. I didn’t say military, but if you have military options, I’d love to hear them. But on the other hand, you have, what, four or five weeks left in office. You’re not describing any different kind of approach or anything you’re going to do to somehow change the equation. So why should anyone expect anything different to happen in the time you still have left in office?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to telegraph changes in the days and weeks ahead, one way or the other.

QUESTION: You’ve been saying that for a couple years now. So you’ve telegraphed nothing because you did nothing.

MR KIRBY: But we – there – we have a range of options at our disposal, Brad. I’m not going to get into decisions that haven’t yet been made. And you can --

QUESTION: That’s – it’s too late for that.

MR KIRBY: Look, you can shake your head in disgust about the answer all you want.

QUESTION: It’s too late for that. You have no time left and you’re saying you’re not going to telegraph something that we know is not going to happen.

MR KIRBY: You might feel that – Brad. Brad. You and the Associated Press might feel that it’s too late. The Secretary of State, John Kerry, does not feel that it’s too late to continue to try to find a political solution to this conflict.

QUESTION: John?

MR KIRBY: Dave.

QUESTION: The – you – in the wording you used in your initial statement, you said that yesterday’s attempted – whatever it was – failed because the regime made the decision to continue fighting and Iranian-backed militias. So you specifically singled out Damascus and Iran. Do you think Russia wanted this to work?

MR KIRBY: I think you’d have to --

QUESTION: Or do you --

MR KIRBY: I think you’d really need to ask --

QUESTION: Right, but you’re not saying they broke the ceasefire.

MR KIRBY: What I’m saying is all the information that we have is that the regime and Iranian-backed militias refused to even start the ceasefire. Now, what Russia’s role in that regard, I’d refer you to Moscow on that.

QUESTION: But do you have any information that they are continuing to bomb?

MR KIRBY: I’m going to leave it how I characterized it.

QUESTION: Okay. Now, Moscow has announced a summit on December the 27th for Turkey and Iran to discuss the situation in Syria. Are you aware of that and is the U.S. going to have any role?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen some press reports on that. That’s the best I have on it. I’m not aware that there’s any role for the United States in that meeting.

QUESTION: Did it come up in any of the Secretary’s calls?

MR KIRBY: It did not. And the other thing I’d say is, as we talked about yesterday, that we welcome any agreement, whether we’re a part of the discussions or not, that could lead to a better outcome in Syria.

I also want to take the opportunity with your question to correct the record a little bit. Yesterday I said that we didn’t have – it’s not – obviously, we didn’t have any role in the bilateral agreement between Russia and Turkey to achieve this stated ceasefire yesterday, which obviously failed before it even got started, but we did have indications that there were these discussions. We did know that there were discussions going on between Turkey and Russia. The Turks were – the Turks did keep us informed about the discussions that were ongoing and the ultimate result, and obviously we were supportive of that. So I misspoke when I said we didn’t have any foreknowledge. We actually did, so I do apologize for the error.

QUESTION: The State Department was aware or was it – was another U.S. department involved?

MR KIRBY: The State Department.

QUESTION: Sir, on Syria. So at the beginning you said that people are not being evacuated, that none of this is happening, they’re not getting help. And I wonder just – if you saw and how does this square with actual footage of many, many civilians leaving and being evacuated, being given food and help – other help?

MR KIRBY: I didn’t say people aren’t being evacuated. I didn't – I didn’t say people aren’t being evacuated. We’ve seen people get out. We’ve seen people get out, but there’s still a lot of people in Aleppo who will need to get out, and many won’t leave because they don’t feel it’s – the passage is safe. And so as I said, what the – what I did say was the Secretary talked about the need to develop safe humanitarian corridors so that people feel comfortable going.

I’m not – I’ve never ever said that people weren’t being evacuated or didn’t evacuate themselves. But they haven’t always been able to do so safely, and so many of them don’t want to leave.

QUESTION: That is – that is actually I want – something I also want to ask you about. So for many months while supporting the rebels in eastern Aleppo, you focused on condemning Russia and the Syrian Government while it seemed to me also often downplayed the reports that reflected negatively on the rebels. And people who are now coming out of eastern Aleppo talk about how they were treated by the rebels. Many of them say that they were shot at by the rebels as they were trying to leave. There are many, many such accounts. And I just saw an AP interview with an Aleppo evacuee who said – just one quote – there are many of them. “They tried in any way with me to volunteer with them, but I refused and they beat me. I tried several times to escape from their areas to areas under government control,” end quote. And I wonder whether these accounts have in any way changed your view of the rebels in eastern Aleppo.

MR KIRBY: Well, I absolutely, fundamentally reject your assertion that we’ve downplayed actions by opposition forces that we obviously don’t agree with. And I have from – many times, and I know Mark has too – from this podium talked about concerns we’ve had in the past about certain opposition groups and opposition members not abiding by the cessation of hostilities. And I’ve seen these same press reports. I’ve seen those same quotes. They’re troubling to be sure. And I can assure you that there’s no opportunity where we don’t – when we don’t have it that we don’t take it to communicate our concerns with opposition groups about their conduct of behavior on the battlefield as well. I mean, we’re not bashful about that, and that will continue as things go on.

But I think, despite what I think is an effort to deflect responsibility by Russia and by Iran and certainly by the regime in your question, there is no doubt that by and large without question the vast majority of the depravity and the brutality, the depredations – we saw reports of executions yesterday, the bombing of schools and hospitals and homes – that that is being conducted by the regime with the support of Russia and Iran. There’s absolutely no question. Mathematically, it’s not even in dispute.

I didn’t say and I never said that the – that there weren’t things that the opposition did that were likewise concerning. We have owned up to that in the past and we’ll continue to do that. And we will continue to express our concern about that.

QUESTION: When I say “downplaying reports of the rebels’ actions,” I mean your response --

MR KIRBY: No, you said that – you said we appear to be downplaying.

QUESTION: Yeah. So – so it’s actually based on your response, the response that you gave me in October when I asked you about accounts from civilians who said that they were shot at by the rebels as they were trying to leave, they were preventing from leaving. And you said, “I can’t confirm that report. You know I don’t get into battlefield reports; I’m not going to do that. What is without dispute is that the siege of Aleppo continues, as I was mentioning earlier. And your question about being held hostage, there should be – and I’ve seen reports that they are allowed to leave.” And then you continued. So that sounded like downplaying to me.

MR KIRBY: No, that sounded like a pretty darn good answer to me. I’m pretty proud of that one. I’ve got no problem with what I said to you then, and I certainly have no problem with what I said to you now.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up?

MR KIRBY: Sure. Steve.

QUESTION: The bombing of civilians hoping to evacuate Aleppo, according today to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees Zeid, is, quote, most – it “most likely constitutes war crimes.” What is the State Department’s reaction to his comment on that?

MR KIRBY: We have talked about this many times, and I think you heard – I heard – I think you heard Ambassador Power speak about this very forcefully yesterday. I’ll just – there’s no change to our view that the Secretary believes that what’s going on, particularly in Aleppo, should be evaluated for the potential of it being found to be war crimes. And as he has said many times, that clearly the brutality, the violence, is outside the norms of any standard of normal conduct of war. And --

QUESTION: But would you concur with the language that --

MR KIRBY: If you’re asking me --

QUESTION: -- this top UN official is using today, that most likely constitutes war crimes?

MR KIRBY: I would just tell you that our view of this, it has not changed and we continue to believe that these depravities – and that’s really the only word I can think of right now that adequately describes it – or atrocities, if you will – should be evaluated appropriately as potential war crimes, and the Secretary said that himself.

Yeah.

QUESTION: You keep saying there’s no military solution and the – it’s the Russian and Syrian failure for trashing the diplomatic solution, but do you think not that the U.S. diplomatic strategy failed by not being backed with a credible threat of force?

MR KIRBY: I think we will continue to evaluate options going forward, Barbara. We continue to believe that a diplomatic approach, a political solution is the right way to go, and I’m not going to prejudge or get ahead of decisions that may or may not be made going forward, as we’ve never done that. But as I said to Brad, nobody’s happy about the result here. You can’t but look at some of the images coming out of Aleppo and feel heartsick about it. But that doesn’t mean that the ultimate end and the means to get to that end is necessarily wrong. Just because you haven’t gotten the exact result you want, it doesn’t mean that in every case on every day that you need to – that you need to alter it necessarily.

And again, I’m not going to get ahead of anything, but we continue to believe that a political solution is the right one – that more violence, more bloodshed, more war is not the way to end this. The way to end it is to get the opposition and the regime at the table to talk about a political transition. I know you’ve heard me say that before; I get that you maybe don’t want to hear me say it again. But it is, we believe, the way to have a sustainable peace in Syria, not the introduction of more options that only increase the threat, that only decrease the security, that only make it more likely that you’re going to have additional bloodshed and violence.

I mean – so I got that Aleppo’s virtually all but taken now. But as I said yesterday, that doesn’t mean the war ends. In fact, this starve and surrender and siege mentality that the regime continues to take virtually assures that will go on. And so for the critics out there that say, well, you should get involved militarily, I’d like them to explain how that is going to end the war faster. We all recognize the difficulty of diplomacy. It can be slow, it can be plodding, and it can be difficult. It’s not linear. I understand that, believe me. I think I understand that more than most, that it’s not a linear process. But that doesn’t mean it’s the wrong approach to take.

Goyal.

QUESTION: New subject?

QUESTION: Oh, no, hold on. I wanted to ask you about the Iran thing as well. That’s one thing that I – it did seem you did downplay in the last few weeks and months was Iran’s influence on this war, but today you’re saying Iran-based militias were responsible for breaking or preventing this ceasefire from ever taking hold. Why have you been so quiet on the role of Iran? I think you were on CNN like a week ago and you said Iran hasn’t really played a significant role in the Aleppo siege.

MR KIRBY: I didn’t. I said Hizballah – we know Hizballah’s there. We said that they have an advisory role on the ground. I definitely put it more on Russia, which I absolutely, 100 percent support. I haven’t downplayed anything on that, Brad. We’ve been very honest about the fact --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: We’ve been very honest about the fact that Iran is there, and --

QUESTION: Really? How many sanctions have you put on Iran over Syria in the last two years? Zero.

MR KIRBY: And I would ask you to go look at comments coming out of Tehran today.

QUESTION: Zero sanctions.

MR KIRBY: Come and look at comments coming out of Tehran today about how they’re fairly crowing about Aleppo and about the role they played --

QUESTION: They are, absolutely.

MR KIRBY: -- in the siege of Aleppo.

QUESTION: They are not downplaying it.

MR KIRBY: So it’s not just me. They’re talking about their role --

QUESTION: Yeah, they’re not downplaying it.

MR KIRBY: -- and we have too.

QUESTION: So what --

MR KIRBY: And we have too.

QUESTION: You’ve – no, you’ve been pretty much focusing entirely on Russia.

MR KIRBY: Because the responsibility lies almost entirely on Russia.

QUESTION: You’ve been saying they’re not playing a major operational role even though they’re directing a lot of the ground attacks and their – they have their own kind of proxies embedded with the Syrians. And you’ve done nothing on the sanctions front even though you have widespread authority to sanction Iran.

MR KIRBY: We have sanctions in place on Iran’s destabilizing activities as well as their support for terrorism and groups like Hizballah, which we know are operating in Syria. There are existing – Brad, come on, now. I mean, I am not going to --

QUESTION: But they’re existing, but why have you put no sanctions on Iran --

MR KIRBY: I am not going to debate – I am not going to debate --

QUESTION: -- for the last two years?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to debate policy with you here or future options going forward, Brad. But you know as well as I do that we have sanctions in place on Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism. You know that many of those affect Hizballah. Those --

QUESTION: But that’s not germane to what we’re talking about here.

MR KIRBY: There are sanctions in place.

QUESTION: This is not a terrorism issue. This is about support for --

MR KIRBY: There are sanctions in place to affect Iran’s destabilizing activities.

QUESTION: You’re just throwing apples and oranges out here.

MR KIRBY: No, I’m not. No.

QUESTION: This is not about state sponsorship of terrorism. This is about their support for the Assad regime’s military activity.

MR KIRBY: And we’ve been – and we have been --

QUESTION: It’s a completely different set and you’ve done – the Administration has done nothing.

MR KIRBY: We’ve been honest about that role. I’m not going to prejudge or get ahead of decisions one way or the other, Brad.

QUESTION: Well --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to do that. I know – you are probably --

QUESTION: -- the prejudging – the “pre” notion is a little silly at December 2016 --

MR KIRBY: I can --

QUESTION: -- after Aleppo falls to declare anything like --

MR KIRBY: I can --

QUESTION: -- prejudging. I mean, what’s done is done.

MR KIRBY: Look, Brad. Brad. Brad. Calm down.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m calmed down.

MR KIRBY: Okay? You don’t need to get so upset.

QUESTION: Yeah, I’m not getting upset.

MR KIRBY: And I don’t know – and I don’t know --

QUESTION: It’s a cheap shot – that’s a cheap shot. Come on.

MR KIRBY: I don’t – no, it’s not.

QUESTION: I’m not upset, I’m just --

MR KIRBY: Yes, you are. Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m just debating a point with you and I’m disagreeing vigorously.

MR KIRBY: And I’m saying this is not the forum to debate policy. If you want to debate policy, I’ll set you up with some policy experts and --

QUESTION: Don’t get upset, John. Don’t get upset, John.

MR KIRBY: Oh, yeah. Yeah, right. Exactly.

QUESTION: It’s a cheap shot.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR KIRBY: No, it’s not a cheap shot. Yeah, Goyal.

QUESTION: Sorry, one more on Syria?

QUESTION: New subject: South Asia. Let’s start with --

QUESTION: Can I follow up on Syria? We’re on Syria.

MR KIRBY: No – no, no, guys. I call the questions. Not you. Go ahead, Goyal.

QUESTION: Let’s start with China. John, sir, a lot had been said since president-elect called or took the call from Taiwanese President. My question is here now, China has been – according to the press reports and experts, China has been getting over a lot of crimes, what they say – human rights and others – for the last 40 years. My question is: Is U.S. happy with “one China” policy, number one? Number two --

MR KIRBY: Goyal, we’ve talked about this. Let me just stop you right there. We’ve talked about this. I’d point you to the transcript over the last several days. There’s been no change about this Administration’s support for the “one China” policy.

QUESTION: So what’s wrong now after 40 years if people are asking that? There’s a time now to ask – there’s Tibetans and Hong Kong and Taiwanese, when you have a special status on Taiwan also. And millions of Muslims inside China also suffering and asking that time has come for the U.S. and UN and international community to review “one China” policy.

MR KIRBY: Again, Goyal, there’s no change to this Administration’s support for the “one China” policy, which has been in place for the last four-plus decades by both Democratic and Republican administrations. I can’t speak for what the next administration will do on that or any other foreign policy priority around the world. That’s for them to decide, for them to speak to. This Administration will continue to support the “one China” policy.

QUESTION: And --

MR KIRBY: Steve.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: Talking about China --

MR KIRBY: Steve.

QUESTION: -- I have a related question. A think tank today here in Washington came out with an analysis of satellite imagery showing placements of anti-aircraft weaponry on the disputed islands in the South China Sea. This seems in direct contrast to what Xi Jinping had told President Obama and others about not militarizing these islands and that these seem to go beyond purely defensive purposes. Are you aware of these images and what is the reaction?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not going to talk about intelligence matters --

QUESTION: Well, this is commercial satellite imagery.

MR KIRBY: I got it. What I will just say is, as always, we’ve consistently called on China as well as other claimants to commit to peacefully managing and resolving disputes, to refrain from further land reclamation, construction of new facilities, and the militarization of disputed features. And I’d refer you to the Chinese Government to explain what these images mean or don’t mean. What we have – we’ve been very consistent about our concerns over the militarization and the lack of the need for that.

QUESTION: Right. Since June or July this activity has been going on, but we’re just hearing this statement being read out again and again. Is there --

MR KIRBY: We routinely raise this issue with our Chinese counterparts. We do that privately. Certainly we’re not bashful about doing it publicly. We’re – for our part, we’re going to continue to fly, sail, and operate in international airspace and international waters, as is our mandate, as is our requirement, as international law will allow. There’s – there should be no need for further reclamation. There should be no need for militarization of these manmade features. And we’re going to continue to make that case at every possible turn.

QUESTION: And John, sir, on India. Since Prime Minister Modi took this hard line on – against the black market money around the globe, people are in shock. But my question is here, now, what he said in a speech that he – because of his actions against the black market money, terrorism against India or in India or around the globe is now less or will be less because he said that before Pakistan had a factory of terrorism and supporting or exporting against India. And now they have or had a factory of printing fake Indian currency inside Pakistan. And now what they are saying is that middle man or most wanted, Dawood Ibrahim, and ISI is in shock. And one person, at least, middle man have now committed suicide in Karachi. He was the one who was pushing the fake market money inside India and supporting terrorism. Any comment, sir, on that?

MR KIRBY: No. I mean, I haven’t seen these reports, Goyal. So I’ll tell you what, we’ll have somebody get back to you on that.

Yeah.

QUESTION: And finally on freedom of the press.

MR KIRBY: No. Goyal, Goyal, I need to move on, okay?

Go ahead.

QUESTION: Hi, I’m Lauren with Fox. A question on Iranian embassy here and then ours in Tehran.

MR KIRBY: We don’t have an embassy in Tehran.

QUESTION: So why did we repair the Iranian embassy here in 2011? Where did that money come from?

MR KIRBY: Ma’am, I don’t have any information on this. I’m going to have to – you’re going to have to let me get back to you on that. I’m not aware that there were any repairs done by the United States on Iranian – we don’t have diplomatic relations with Iran.

QUESTION: Well, that’s --

MR KIRBY: So, like, we don’t have an embassy there and they don’t have an embassy here.

QUESTION: Well, that’s the – that’s the question, is we did do extensive repairs in 2011 and the question is: Why are we doing that if our embassy or, now, lack of embassy --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I mean, there’s no formal diplomatic relations, so there’s no embassy here. We don’t have one in Tehran. So you’re – you must be talking about a building here that maybe at one time had been, right? Is that what you’re referring to?

QUESTION: It’s the blue dome. We redid a blue dome that was the Iranian embassy in 2011 and that --

MR KIRBY: And when you say “we,” you mean the U.S. Government?

QUESTION: The United States, correct.

MR KIRBY: Okay. I don’t know anything about it, so let me take that question and we’ll try to get you a better answer.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: All right?

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, can I go back to Syria for a minute? Could you brief us – brief us, sorry – on the status of the so-called technical talks in Geneva between Russian and American experts?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have any update for you, Nic. Those --

QUESTION: But are they --

MR KIRBY: Those talks became moribund over the weekend when we couldn’t reach – when we reached an impasse, and I talked about that earlier this week.

QUESTION: Okay. And --

QUESTION: But “moribund” means they’ve stopped?

MR KIRBY: Right, there’s – right, yes.

QUESTION: So the teams are back to --

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I don’t – we have people that are always in Geneva, so, like, I don’t want to convey the image of people packing up suitcases and flying back. I mean, we have people in Geneva that were participating in this. There’s other things that they do as well. We have many – there’s many activities going on in Geneva, but there are – but there’s no technical talks going on right now because we couldn’t get there over the weekend because Russia came in at the endgame and changed the parameters.

QUESTION: And to follow up to what you said to Brad and to what the Secretary told us in Paris about the political talks, are you still hopeful to be able to relaunch these political talks before January 20, even if there is no ceasefire in Aleppo? And do you have indication that the Assad regime is willing to go back to the table and that the opposition is – has agreed to return to the table with the coalition?

MR KIRBY: Well, I don’t think we have – I don’t think we have agreement right now to get to the resumption of political talks, but I can tell you that the Secretary’s going to stay focused on that for the rest of the time that he’s in office. Now, I can’t predict for you the likelihood of that happening before the end of this Administration. I just would not be able to do that. But what I can tell you is that, as I said in my opening comments, that he’s going to work very, very hard to try to achieve that outcome before he leaves office. And at the very least, if he can’t, to be able to create the kind of conditions where that can happen soon after or early on.

Yeah, Nick.

QUESTION: On Syria, do you get the sense that the Russian position has changed at all, with now only a few weeks away until the handover, that they basically think they can wait Secretary Kerry out, then they’re going to get someone new who has ties to Russia? Has their language changed, has their sort of negotiating strategy changed with the Secretary? Does he feel like he’s being sort of stalled on?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, look, there’s been frustrations with the Russian approach to this for months now, so I’ve not detected any change. I mean, as I said earlier on, that though they talk about wanting to achieve a political solution, they continue – their actions convey something entirely different, which is that they believe a military solution is possible because they continue to support the Assad regime in this brutality. I’ve not detected any change. And as for what’s in their mindset with respect to the transition to a new administration, I would refer you to Russian officials to speak to that. I wouldn’t know.

But I can, again, speak for Secretary Kerry and tell you that regardless, he is going to stay engaged. He had another conversation with Foreign Minister Lavrov today, as I said, and he’s going to keep that level of engagement and activity up for the entire time that he’s Secretary of State to try to achieve this – these political talks, to try to get the sides to the table to try to work this out.

Yeah.

QUESTION: John, you told us the Secretary spoke with the foreign minister of Turkey. Is it possible to tell us if they discussed Cyprus also, or just Syria?

MR KIRBY: The discussion with the Turkish foreign minister this morning was about Syria.

QUESTION: Only Syria? Okay. They are reporting in the press that Mrs. Nuland gave a proposal to the governments of Greece and Turkey on Cyprus. Can you confirm this?

MR KIRBY: I cannot.

QUESTION: Can you take the question?

MR KIRBY: I’m happy to take a look at it, but I can’t --

QUESTION: And the last question I have --

MR KIRBY: -- but --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: I’ll take it back. I’m not – I can’t guarantee you a definitive answer one way or the other. Okay?

QUESTION: Okay. But can I ask the last question?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Can you tell us who is going to represent the United States at the talks in Geneva? There are talks on Cyprus from January 9th to January 12th. I understand that the Russians are going.

MR KIRBY: We’ll have to get back to you.

QUESTION: Can you take the question? Thank you.

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

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Yes. So President Putin is traveling to Japan and will be meeting with Prime Minister Abe. Given sort of the urgency of what’s happening in Aleppo and Syria, do you think that it’s appropriate that those meetings will focus primarily on bilateral issues?

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry, who’s meeting with --

QUESTION: President Putin is meeting with Prime Minister Abe.

MR KIRBY: And you’re asking me if it’s appropriate for him to have these meetings?

QUESTION: Well, I mean, do you think – well, would you encourage them – would you encourage your allies, the Japanese, to sort of – to escalate the issue of Syria in these talks and pressure the Russians --

MR KIRBY: Well, first of all, you know I’m not going to talk about diplomatic conversations one way or another. And these kinds of meetings are sovereign decisions that nation-states make, and it’s not for us to pass judgment on it one way or the other. Prime Minister Abe has every right – and responsibility, in fact – to meet with foreign leaders of his own choosing, and to discuss whatever is on his mind and his agenda, and we fully support that.

No, Goyal. I think I’m going to – I think I’m going to call it for today.

QUESTION: Freedom of the press.

MR KIRBY: Thanks very much. (Laughter.) You’ve had plenty of freedom today.

QUESTION: Thank you.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:43 p.m.)

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

Daily Press Briefings : Public Schedule: December 14, 2016

December 14, 2016

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

PUBLIC SCHEDULE

DECEMBER 14, 2016

SECRETARY JOHN KERRY

10:00 a.m. Secretary Kerry delivers remarks at the Toys for Tots ceremonial presentation event to the Marine Corps Reserve, at the Department of State.

(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

10:30 a.m. Secretary Kerry delivers remarks to the Global Health Security Agenda meeting, at the Department of State.

(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

****

DEPUTY SECRETARY ANTONY BLINKEN

Deputy Secretary Blinken attends meetings and briefings, at the Department of State.

DEPUTY SECRETARY HEATHER HIGGINBOTTOM

Deputy Secretary Higginbottom attends meetings and briefings, at the Department of State.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS TOM SHANNON

Under Secretary Shannon is on travel to Santiago, Chile and Brasilia, Brazil December 13 to 18. Please click here for more information.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR DEMOCRACY, HUMAN RIGHTS, AND LABOR TOM MALINOWSKI

Assistant Secretary Malinowski is on travel to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia December 13 to 17. Please click here for more information.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS CHARLES RIVKIN

Assistant Secretary Rivkin is on travel to Doha, Qatar; and Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia December 11 to 16. Please click here for more information.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ARMS CONTROL, VERIFICATION, AND COMPLIANCE FRANK ROSE

Assistant Secretary Rose is on travel to Bucharest, Romania; Brussels, Belgium; Paris, France; and London, United Kingdom December 12 to 16. Please click here for more information.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AFRICAN AFFAIRS LINDA THOMAS-GREENFIELD

Assistant Secretary Thomas-Greenfield is on travel to Liberia December 14-17. Please click here for more information.

AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAVID SAPERSTEIN

Ambassador Saperstein is on travel to India and Bangladesh December 11 to 22. Please click here for more information.

SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE JONATHAN PERSHING

Special Envoy Pershing is on travel to Seattle, Washington and San Francisco, California December 13 to 16. Please click here for more information.

SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR NORTH KOREA POLICY JOSEPH YUN

Special Representative Yun is on travel to Japan and the Republic of Korea December 7 to 14. Please click here for more information.

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

Daily Press Briefings : Public Schedule: December 13, 2016

December 13, 2016

SECRETARY JOHN KERRY

12:00 p.m. Secretary Kerry attends a working lunch with U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter and National Security Advisor Susan Rice, at the White House.

(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

2:30 p.m. Secretary Kerry delivers remarks at the Unaccompanied Tour Family Holiday Reception, at the Department of State. Please click here for more information.

(OPEN PRESS COVERAGE)

Preset time for video cameras: 1:45 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.

Final access time for journalists and still photographers: 2:15 p.m. from the 23rd Street Entrance Lobby.

6:00 p.m. Secretary Kerry delivers remarks at the Diplomatic Corps Holiday Reception, at the Department of State.

(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

****

DEPUTY SECRETARY ANTONY BLINKEN

Deputy Secretary Blinken attends meetings and briefings, at the Department of State.

DEPUTY SECRETARY HEATHER HIGGINBOTTOM

Deputy Secretary Higginbottom attends meetings and briefings, at the Department of State.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLITICAL AFFAIRS TOM SHANNON

1:00 p.m. Under Secretary Shannon attends a meeting at the White House.

(MEDIA DETERMINED BY HOST)

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AFFAIRS SHEBA CROCKER

Assistant Secretary Crocker is on travel to New York to meet with UN officials.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS CHARLES RIVKIN

Assistant Secretary Rivkin is on travel to Doha, Qatar; and Riyadh and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia December 11 to 16. Please click here for more information.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ARMS CONTROL, VERIFICATION, AND COMPLIANCE FRANK ROSE

Assistant Secretary Rose is on travel to Bucharest, Romania; Brussels, Belgium; Paris, France; and London, United Kingdom December 12 to 16. Please click here for more information.

ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR EAST ASIAN AND PACIFIC AFFAIRS DANIEL RUSSEL

4:30 p.m. Assistant Secretary Russel meets with Burmese Ambassador to the U.S. Aung Lynn, at the Department of State.

(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

AMBASSADOR-AT-LARGE FOR GLOBAL WOMEN’S ISSUES CATHY RUSSELL

12:00 p.m. Ambassador Russell hosts a luncheon for members of the Diplomatic Corps, at the Blair House in Washington, D.C.

(CLOSED PRESS COVERAGE)

AMBASSADOR AT LARGE FOR INTERNATIONAL RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAVID SAPERSTEIN

Ambassador Saperstein is on travel to India and Bangladesh December 11 to 22. Please click here for more information.

SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE CHANGE JONATHAN PERSHING

Special Envoy Pershing is on travel to Seattle, Washington and San Francisco, California December 13 to 16. Please click here for more information.

SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR NORTH KOREA POLICY JOSEPH YUN

Special Representative Yun is on travel to Japan and the Republic of Korea December 7 to 14. Please click here for more information.

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 12, 2016

John Kirby





Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 12, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

DRC



SECRETARY KERRY



CHINA



DEPARTMENT



SYRIA/RUSSIA/REGION



MACEDONIA



ISRAEL/PALESTINIANS



JAPAN



CHINA/REGION


TRANSCRIPT:

2:11 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Mr. Klapper.

QUESTION: Good afternoon.

MR KIRBY: Afternoon, it is. All right, a couple of things at the top here. I hope everybody had a good weekend.

First on the DRC, I think you may have seen this. The U.S. Department of the Treasury imposed targeted sanctions on two government officials in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Interior and Security Evariste Boshab and General Administrator of the National Intelligence Agency Kalev Mutondo. These designations are based on actions or policies that undermine democratic processes or institutions in the DRC.

Today’s action follows prior listings in June and September. The United States Government, of course, remains concerned about increasing repression by the DRC Government and security services including increased restrictions on the media and on exercising peaceful freedom of assembly. These are sanctions against individuals not against the Congolese people. That said, while the two individuals designated are government officials, we call on all Congolese, including the opposition, to refrain from inflammatory rhetoric, violence, or actions inconsistent with democratic norms. And of course, we urge the government and the opposition to reach an agreement on a path forward for credible elections. For more detail on the actual sanctions, I’m going to refer you to my colleagues at the Treasury Department.

On the Secretary’s schedule today, I do want to provide a brief readout that he met today with Secretary General of the PLO Saed – Saeb, I’m sorry – Erekat and the chief of Palestinian general intelligence. The Secretary, Mr. Erekat, Mr. Faraj discussed regional challenges, including Syria, Libya, Yemen, and the need to fight violent extremism as well as constructive ideas for the way forward to support our shared goal of a two-state solution. The Secretary stressed the United States’ commitment to this issue and his concern over trends on the ground. They agreed on the importance of continuing to work with key partners to advance the prospects for peace while opposing all efforts that would undermine that goal.

For their part, Mr. Erekat and Mr. Faraj also reiterated President Abbas’s desire to continue to work constructively with the incoming administration.

With that, I’ll go to you, Brad.

QUESTION: I wanted to start with China.

MR KIRBY: Okay.

QUESTION: What is your take on the president-elect’s comments about the “one China” policy and making that potentially contingent on trade or other concessions from Beijing?

MR KIRBY: Here’s what I’d say, and I obviously can only speak for our Administration. But we remain firmly committed to our “one China” policy which, as you know, is based on the three joint communiques and the Taiwan Relation Acts – sorry, the Taiwan Relations Act. This policy has supported our fundamental interest in peaceful and stable cross-strait relations through both Democratic and Republican administrations over the past 40 years. We do not believe that altering this approach is going to serve our fundamental interest in cross-strait peace and stability or strengthen our relations with the people of Taiwan or, frankly, improve our ability to shape China’s decisions going forward.

QUESTION: Have you had any interactions with your Chinese counterparts since this latest interview of the president-elect? I remember before you did but --

MR KIRBY: None that I’m aware of. None that I’m aware of.

QUESTION: Okay. Are you --

MR KIRBY: And as I understand it, this – the interview took place just yesterday, so I’m not aware of any interaction.

QUESTION: Right. Okay. Are you aware of any – or let me put it this way: Are you concerned that these types of comments could have immediate effects on U.S.-Chinese cooperation on North Korea, on cyber, on some of the other things that you’ve strove so hard to improve cooperation on?

MR KIRBY: I mean, it’s difficult to – it’s difficult to know with any certainty, Brad. What I can tell you is that we’ve been clear, we will remain clear with Chinese leaders, as well as Taiwan, our commitment to this “one China” policy and our commitment, as I said, to better – I should say peaceful and stable cross-strait relations. And so I – I’ve seen no – I don’t think I have any reaction to read out as a result of the comments or certainly any tangible practical effect as a result of them. And for our part, we’re just going to stay focused on the policy that we’ve been pursuing and, as I said, has been pursued now for four-plus decades in terms of a “one China” policy. So I can’t obviously predict what the new administration will actually implement in terms of China policy. I can just tell you that we’re going to stay focused on pursuing the same agenda.

QUESTION: Okay. Can I just ask you then about the Chinese reaction? Some of it’s been quite virulent. Do you think the Chinese are overreacting with some of their reactions? For example, I think some state newspapers called the president-elect an ignorant child. Is that something you would take umbrage with or dispute? Your response?

MR KIRBY: I appreciate the question. I think I’m not in a position to characterize their reaction and their characterization of the comments made. I think you’re right; we’ve seen their public comments. I’ll let the Chinese speak for themselves in terms of the way they want to react to the interview. I would just tell you that, again, we’re focused on the “one China” policy that we’ve been pursuing, been pursued by administrations in both parties in the past. We – as I said, we believe any change to that is not going to serve our fundamental interest in cross-strait relations.

The other thing that I would say is that here at the department what we’re – in terms of transition, what we’re mostly focused on – actually, what we’re solely focused on is making sure that we can provide for a good, healthy transition here to the next administration, that they have the context, the information that they need to develop whatever policy agenda they’re going to pursue.

QUESTION: You know, and they also threatened --

QUESTION: So – and a follow-up?

QUESTION: They also threatened to arm U.S. adversaries and so on.

MR KIRBY: Who is “they”?

QUESTION: The Chinese. They said they can also arm groups who are --

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m not --

QUESTION: -- who are adversarial to --

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate --

QUESTION: -- to U.S. interests everywhere it --

MR KIRBY: I don’t find it useful to speculate and hypothesize about what’s coming down the road under the next administration. These are – these are serious matters and serious policy issues that they will need to work through. What we’re going to do is make sure that we’re poised and ready to provide them whatever context they need as they begin to make these decisions. But I want to be clear again that we have continued what has been a bipartisan approach for the past 40 years with respect to a “one China” policy, and we continue to believe – this Administration continues to believe – that this serves our interests, our national security interests, in the best possible way. The next administration, the president-elect will have to make these decisions for himself and for themselves. Again, we believe in the soundness of it and we will remain, again, poised and ready to provide them whatever context they need as they work their way through it. I just won’t – I just don’t find it useful to guess about implications one way or the other going forward, and I wouldn’t – I wouldn’t take it upon myself to characterize the Chinese reaction. I think it speaks for itself. You’ve seen their public comments. I think as Brad accurately said, they’re – they’re direct.

QUESTION: May I have a follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Yes.

QUESTION: So I just want to clarify. So is the transition team contact or reach out with you with regard to the policy guideline, or did you provide any information to the transition team?

MR KIRBY: Right. So they’re here. There is a transition team here at the State Department and we have been – there have been discussions between them and various officials here at the State Department. As I said earlier, and I’m going to stick to my pledge, I’m not going to do a daily readout here of who they’re talking to or what information they’re asking for or what they’re deciding to do with the information that they’re getting. That is for them to speak to. But they are here, they are working, and we are providing information to them as they see fi, as they deem appropriate.

QUESTION: As you mentioned, you’re --

MR KIRBY: We’ll stay on this just because I think this is relevant, and then we’ll go to Syria.

QUESTION: Well, you mentioned now your sole focus is on the peaceful transition. Do you lay out the consequences or repercussions of that comment mainly to the transition team or the team in New York?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to detail the – whatever conversations we’re having with the transition team. What I can tell you is that we have a lot of experienced diplomats here who have been engaged and involved in issues like this and others around the world. They stand ready. They have provided context on various issues, and I’m not going to detail the ones but they have provided some information and some briefing materials. It is for the president-elect and his team to decide how they want to develop their foreign policy priorities. That’s the way the system works, and we’re going to respect that here.

All I can say with certainty is that this Administration – President Obama and certainly Secretary Kerry – continues to abide by the “one China” policy that has been supported by administrations of both parties and has served our fundamental interests in the region well.

QUESTION: And President-elect Trump also, during the interview, he said he fully understand the “one China” policy. Do you believe he really understand it? And is it appropriate for him to make that comment?

MR KIRBY: Again, these are questions that you should be posing to the president-elect and his team. I’m not privy to the briefings they’re getting and to the information that they have available to them. And the president-elect made clear his level of comfort with the information, and he indicated some alternatives that he’s thinking about. I think it’s best for him and his team to speak to that, not for us.

QUESTION: Just a final one, sir. If he is trying to undo the longstanding policy this Administration and the previous administration pursued, you can’t do anything to prevent it?

MR KIRBY: These are decisions that he and his team have to make. What we will do is continue to implement the “one China” policy that this Administration continues to believe is in our best national security interest. Secondly, we will, as they deem appropriate and deem fit, provide them with whatever information they need as they start to develop their own foreign policy about this and places all over the world. As I said, we have a terrific corps of diplomats here at the State Department, people with long experience in that region and in other places around the world. They stand ready to provide the context and information as the new team wants. And what they do with that information and how much they make themselves available to it is really for them.

Our job is not to preclude or to try to enforce an approach to any particular issue around the world to the new team. They were elected by the American people. They will work through these issues in their own time and in their own way, and then when they’re ready to express what their policy’s going to be on this or any other issue, they’ll do that. The Secretary has been firm about where he wants the department to head, and that is to make sure that we are making ourselves available to them and to make this transition as seamless and as easy for them as possible, and that’s what our focus is on. Okay?

QUESTION: Quick follow-up?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: You just said that you’re not going to read out any conversations that you may have had with the transition team. Have there been briefings – live briefings, not just paper? Has there been any conversations --

MR KIRBY: As I understand it, Brad, there has been both.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: As I understand it, there have been active conversations as well as the provision of briefing material information. That’s my understanding.

QUESTION: So these would be conversations that transition members had with senior officials here, assistant secretary level of the – from --

MR KIRBY: I don’t want to get into the details, but I know that there have been conversations as well as informational material provided to them.

QUESTION: So – just so we’re clear, we mean kind of formal briefings where somebody comes in or officials here come in and they present, say, Syrian civil war, something like that, and they --

MR KIRBY: I don’t believe --

QUESTION: Or is it just on the phone, or just --

MR KIRBY: I think it’s been all manner of conversation. I don’t – I honestly don’t know the degree to which there have been formal presentations the way I think you and I would think about a formal presentation. I really don’t know. I do know that there have been conversations, like face-to-face meetings and discussions, as well as information provided for them to read and to peruse, again, at their request.

Okay.

QUESTION: John, could --

MR KIRBY: Are we good on China?

QUESTION: On this topic?

MR KIRBY: No?

QUESTION: Yeah, could you just give us some insight into the challenges and dilemmas this situation creates for the State Department as you are going about your diplomatic missions when there is a president-elect already talking about something that may just be six weeks down the pike?

MR KIRBY: Challenges and dilemmas?

QUESTION: It’s got to be awkward.

MR KIRBY: (Laughter.) Well, I mean, I think most of the foreign leaders that we deal with understand the way our transitions go, that for a period of about two months or so you’ve got a sitting administration that is still pursuing domestic and foreign agenda items and committed to them as well as an incoming administration that is forming itself, literally, in terms of resources and selection of individuals, as well as, at the same time, further developing the foreign policy or domestic policy agenda items of the president-elect, and they understand that.

And I was on the road with the Secretary, as you know, last week throughout Europe, and he’s very good about speaking to the foreign policy agenda and the things that we’re trying to get done in this Administration with the time that we have left and not speaking to whatever the incoming team might decide to do on you pick the issue.

Now, we are mindful that some foreign governments and some foreign leaders have already had initial conversations with the president-elect. That’s not unprecedented, that’s not a surprise, that’s – it’s not like it’s never been done before. That’s all part of a process of change. And as I said, the foreign governments and foreign leaders, certainly, that we’ve been dealing with directly now in the past five, six weeks, whatever it has been since the election, they understand that.

And so I don’t know, Carol, that there’s been huge obstacles or challenges as a result of this because this happens routinely in our democracy and they know that. And I can tell you that in the conversations that the Secretary had just over the last week – and I’m sure we’re going to get to Syria here in a second – they were tangible, practical decisions about what’s going on on those issues and not spent – there wasn’t a lot of time spent on speculating or hypothesizing about what the incoming administration might do.

In other words, this change, this transition, did not have a tangible, practical effect on the kinds of issues that we continue to have. It doesn’t mean that it’s not – I don’t want to, like – I’m not trying to dismiss it or say that it’s not obviously on the minds of so many people because they know there is a new team coming in. Of course it’s on their minds and – but they have a – they have had and can, at their discretion, have direct communications with the transition team if they so choose to talk about whatever their issues or concerns are.

What we’ve been focused on, truly, is on trying to continue to move our foreign policy agenda forward, to try to get a peace in Syria, to continue to maintain our commitments to the Iran deal, to try to improve and contribute to security and stability in the Asia Pacific region, to continue to move forward our implementation of the Paris Agreement on climate change. That’s what we’re focused on. That’s a long answer. It was a great question and I hope I provided enough context on there, but it was fair.

Ma’am.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Can you bring us up to date on where things stand with the U.S.-Russia technical talks in Geneva?

MR KIRBY: As far as I know, our teams are still trying to work on the – trying to work this out. I think, as you know, over the weekend, representatives from the U.S., from Russia, United Nations, and other international organizations did meet to try to finalize an agreement, a cessation of hostilities, that would allow for the safe, voluntary departure of civilians and opposition members from east Aleppo, as well as – and this needs to continue to be pressed – the delivery of humanitarian aid, which is so desperately needed.

However, rather than accepting the U.S. proposal for an immediate cessation, the Russians informed us that a cessation could not start for several days, meaning that the assault by the regime and its supporters on Aleppo would continue until any agreement would go into effect. Given the dire situation in Aleppo and the reports of continued attacks on civilians and infrastructure, this was just simply not acceptable. So we’re deeply frustrated, but we’re not surprised by this lack of Russian and regime commitment to what should be a humane solution to the current brutality. And we remain gravely worried for the safety and well-being of the people that are now remaining in east Aleppo.

QUESTION: So they – so the Russians wanted a delay of several days before the cessation of hostilities were to start; that was their – the condition? Is that what you said?

MR KIRBY: Yeah. They informed us that a ceasefire could not start for several days, meaning that this assault would just continue.

QUESTION: So that was on – during the weekend when they told you that. Have you noticed an uptick in the number of sorties they’re flying, the – a level of kind of advancement of the army in that time period?

MR KIRBY: Well, I’m – I don’t have, like, sortie figures to read out. I wouldn’t have access to that information. That’s really something for the defense ministry in Moscow to speak to. We have seen continued violence, we have seen continued attacks, we’ve got indications of continued airstrikes. But I would not be in a position to quantify that. The violence has continued, though.

QUESTION: And --

QUESTION: John?

QUESTION: Just a second. So you’re – the Russian foreign minister, Lavrov, said that he – I think he – the way he phrased it was that the U.S. was at a dead end stance. He was saying that the U.S. was refusing to budge. What would be your response to that?

MR KIRBY: I think I’ve already responded in my – in how I characterized your first question. We remained open to having meaningful discussions in Geneva to get the cessation, to get the aid in, and frankly – and this shouldn’t be forgotten – to try to get the political talks back on track. They’re the ones that came in in the end game and said, “Well, no set new ceasefire is going to – can start for several days,” which means, basically, the siege goes on and Aleppo could fall in the meantime. And again, that’s – that condition was unacceptable to us. So I think while we would still like to get there, and the Secretary is never one to just throw his hands up, I think we’re certainly at an impasse right now.

QUESTION: The --

QUESTION: What’s the practical --

MR KIRBY: Hang on a second.

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: At this point, like, the Syrian army has almost overtaken all of east Aleppo. They’ve said that the announcement is fairly imminent. What is really left to even negotiate in Geneva if they’re about to take control of that?

MR KIRBY: Well, I mean, what – exactly what we talked about. I mean, first of all, I’ve seen all kinds of conflicting press reports about how much of Aleppo has been taken back, and clearly, from just collecting all the various sources of information, we obviously know that the regime has a majority of the city. There’s no question about that. I couldn’t give you an exact percentage here, but in terms of what’s left to negotiate, it is exactly what we tried – what we were working on throughout the weekend, which was to get the bombs to stop so that people that wanted to leave, including opposition, could do so safely, as well as the parameters through which they could get out safely. I mean, many people were afraid to go, because to go would be to leave themselves vulnerable – in fact, perhaps more vulnerable to airstrikes and attacks by the regime. So that was all part of this discussion as well. Those were the things that we were trying to get set – was getting the ceasefire in place, getting the parameters for how it would be enforced and how people could get out safely and securely, as well as – at the same time you’re trying to work routes out, we wanted to be able to negotiate routes in for humanitarian aid and how it would get in, how it would get delivered. All that stuff was being discussed. Now, it was being discussed at a staff level – at a technical level, if you will. So those were the things that we were hoping to get nailed down in Geneva.

The other thing, and I foot-stomped it a few minutes ago, but I want to do it again, and – because the Secretary has – was clear in his discussions with Foreign Minister Lavrov over the weekend, both on the phone and there in Hamburg face to face, that what we really need – that what we all need to stay focused on is the resumption of political talks, which obviously is elusive right now. He understands that, given where we are with Aleppo, but while the focus is rightly on trying to save lives in Aleppo and get food, water, and medicine in, it is all part and parcel of what should be a larger effort – an effort that the Russians said they supported through I don’t know how many communiques through the ISSG, which is getting the opposition and the regime to the table finally to start to have meaningful talks. That’s a very difficult place to be when you’re looking at what we’re looking at in Aleppo right now.

QUESTION: John, could I follow up on that?

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: Are you aware of the reports that allege that Palmyra was retaken by ISIS? You have --

MR KIRBY: Yeah, I have seen --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- press reports about it, Said. I’m not in a position to --

QUESTION: But you don’t have any information? Because the Russians are claiming the spokesman for the ministry of defense, Igor Konashenkov, said that the reason they were able to do it, because the alliance apparently stopped their bombardment of Raqqa. So thousands of fighters were able to make their way to Palmyra or Tadmor, so --

MR KIRBY: With the alliance? You mean the coalition?

QUESTION: Right, the coalition. I’m sorry. The coalition --

MR KIRBY: All right. Well, look, there’s a – so there’s a --

QUESTION: I meant to say the coalition. I’m sorry.

MR KIRBY: There’s a lot there. First, I can’t confirm the press reports about the degree to which the so-called Islamic State is or is not in possession of Palmyra. I’ve seen reporting that says that the attacks are ongoing; I’ve seen reporting that it’s been complete. I don’t know.

Secondly, the isolation operations in and around Raqqa continue. I would refer you to my Defense Department colleagues to speak to that with greater clarity. But nobody has lost focus on continuing to pursue this goal of liberating Raqqa, and everything I’ve seen this morning is that the isolation operations continue. So claims that we somehow stopped supporting SDF forces in terms of trying to further isolate Raqqa is just not true.

QUESTION: So are you worried about this apparent hydraulic effect, that it could happen; they could leave Mosul and go elsewhere in Iraq or in Syria; they could leave Raqqa and go elsewhere in Syria?

MR KIRBY: Daesh?

QUESTION: Daesh, yes. Because the numbers you speak --

MR KIRBY: I’ve never heard it referred to as a hydraulic effect.

QUESTION: I mean, that when you press --

QUESTION: It’s a fluid situation.

MR KIRBY: A fluid situation.

QUESTION: It’s a fluid situation.

MR KIRBY: Now I get it.

QUESTION: Yeah. I mean, you --

MR KIRBY: All right. No, no, I was a --

QUESTION: You press here, it goes there.

MR KIRBY: I was a history major.

QUESTION: You know what I’m saying.

MR KIRBY: So look, I mean --

QUESTION: I mean, we’re talking about like 4,000 and maybe hundreds of vehicles and so forth.

MR KIRBY: We – I mean, throughout this entire military campaign – and I don’t want to revisit the history here, but we’ve been mindful that as they get pressured and pushed, they go elsewhere. I mean, that’s not something we haven’t seen before. When they do and when they are vulnerable in doing it, we try to take as much advantage of that as possible.

I don’t know, Said, whether – as we continue to work with forces on the ground in Syria in isolating Raqqa, where they will go. But we’re obviously mindful that some of them – many of them – may choose to leave. We saw that in the run-up to Mosul. We saw Daesh fighters decide on their own to leave, even against the orders of some of their leaders who were trying to get them to stay. And some of the hardliners will stay, no doubt about that. I don’t know what that mix is going to look like and I can’t possibly predict where they’ll go, but we have seen in the past where they have sought refuge elsewhere.

What I will tell you is this: As we have done elsewhere in Iraq and in other places in Syria, the coalition will stay focused on eliminating them as a threat and degrading and defeating their capabilities. The Pentagon had some numbers out there yesterday quoted to an anonymous military official. I’m not in a position to confirm, but we know for sure that tens of thousands of their fighters have been eliminated. We know for sure that hundreds of their leaders have been killed and taken off the battlefield. We know that we have dried up their revenue sources. We know they’re having trouble recruiting. We know they’re having trouble retaining. It doesn’t mean that they aren’t still a threat. It doesn’t mean that they still don’t have fighters who are willing to succumb to this pernicious narrative of theirs – this ideology – but we will stay focused on it.

And the other thing I’d say is whether Palmyra has been attacked or not, whether it has been taken or not – let’s just assume that it has been – it would be the first thing geographically that they have been able to reacquire – or acquire, period – since May of 2015. So I mean, again, I don’t know if it’s true that they’re doing it, but this is a group that is very much in trouble, and they know it.

QUESTION: A follow-up to that? A follow-up on that?

QUESTION: So you said it’s possible that some of these fighters came from Mosul or from --

MR KIRBY: I don’t know. I can’t rule it out, Brad.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: We knew that some would leave Mosul; but as I said, where they went and what they – and what they did, I just don’t think we know that.

QUESTION: A follow-up?

QUESTION: And then since you brought up the numbers about the tens of thousands who have been eliminated from the battlefield, I think – I don’t know when the last estimate was of ISIS fighters, but at one time for a while it was 25,000. And now we’ve got more dead than were alive back then – than ever existed. So how did that happen?

MR KIRBY: Because they’ve been able to – because they have – we’ve talked about this openly. Because we know that they have been able to continue to recruit. They have been able to replenish their manpower.

QUESTION: So they – so if – okay. So --

MR KIRBY: But I’m not confirming the number that was put out by an anonymous --

QUESTION: It just seemed – okay. And then I had one other numbers. It was also – since you’re not going to say how much percentage you think of Aleppo has been retaken --

MR KIRBY: I just don’t know.

QUESTION: The Russians are talking about 98 percent just of east Aleppo, which is only a part of Aleppo, so we’re talking like 99.5 percent or something of the city, which --

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen the reports, Brad, but I’m not in a position to confirm it. As I said, we’re certainly – I think our assessment is that the majority – that the regime has taken the majority of Aleppo. I mean, that’s obvious. But I am – I don’t have the dexterity to give you a percentage figure or neighborhood by neighborhood.

QUESTION: Right. There was also a figure I think that came – that had been mentioned at this podium maybe a couple times – definitely the UN, as well – about 350,000 people that were in east Aleppo trapped at one time. That number – I just wanted to know, because – if there’s been any accounting of what happened to all those people. There were some people that we know went on the road. I heard about 10,000 about a week or two ago and – but there’s a huge amount of number that just seems to have vanished into the ether here. Do we know what’s going on with these estimates?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have an exact figure for you --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- in terms of who’s left or who has departed. It’s very difficult to know with certainty.

QUESTION: Follow-up on Palmyra. I mean, the Hashd al-Shaabi, the Shia militia which Iran is very much involved with, was given the role of being a blocking force in the west regarding just that scenario of people – of ISIS fighters fleeing Mosul. Since the Russians have good relations with Iran, it seems that that is something that they were in a position to affect and influence through their Iranian friends.

MR KIRBY: Is that a question?

QUESTION: I – do you have a comment on that? The Russians – I mean, maybe the Russians are exaggerating this?

MR KIRBY: Talk to the Russians. I mean, look, I’m not – I can’t put myself in their head in terms of what they’re thinking about in terms of support to or for Shia militia. We’re going to – all I can do is tell you what the coalition is going to stay focused on and that’s on degrading and defeating this group.

And I can’t – I don’t know the degree to which they’ve reacquired Palmyra. I don’t even – I can’t even tell you the degree to which I – that we know that they’re trying to. But this is a group that is very much on the defensive – very much on the defensive – and we’re going to keep them there.

QUESTION: But it sounds like the Russia allies, the Syrians, may have lost Palmyra. There’s some – there’s certainly some problem there, because the Russians themselves are reporting attacks on Palmyra. But rather than accept that this is their problem, perhaps caused by the weakness of their Syrian ally, they blame the United States and say it should have stopped forces – ISIS fighters leaving Mosul, when in fact it was a militia that was supported by Iran, which is their ally, which was given the job of blocking the flight of fighters from --

MR KIRBY: If you’re asking me to join in with you in pushing back on the idea that we are responsible for any fall of Palmyra, you got me there and I agree with you.

QUESTION: Okay, that’s – yes. Thank you.

MR KIRBY: And that’s what you’re asking?

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: Yeah. Okay. We’re finally on the same page.

QUESTION: A short follow-up on Palmyra. Did you communicate with the Russian officials about the situation in Palmyra maybe? Any --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any --

QUESTION: -- intelligence sharing --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any such communications. There hasn’t been. With respect to the fight against Daesh, again, I’d point you to my Defense Department colleagues. There hasn’t been that kind of communication and coordination. Not because, oh by the way, we weren’t willing to do it. If you might recall a couple of months ago, we had an agreement that was working towards what would have been known as a joint implementation center that would have allowed us an opportunity to coordinate, communicate in the counter-Daesh fight. And we weren’t able to establish it because the Russians weren’t willing to meet their commitments.

QUESTION: So you’re saying that Russians don’t want to communicate on these issues?

MR KIRBY: I’m saying that we had an opportunity a couple months ago to better coordinate and communicate with respect to counter-Daesh operations. We couldn’t get there because the Russians wouldn’t meet their commitments. I’m not – I don’t believe there has been any communication with Russia with respect to what’s going on in Palmyra – counter-Daesh. I certainly encourage you to talk to my colleagues at the Pentagon, but I’d be very surprised if there was – if there’s been any.

QUESTION: Can I change topics?

QUESTION: No.

QUESTION: Different --

MR KIRBY: No, apparently you’re not allowed to. (Laughter.) Who else is on this?

QUESTION: Russia?

QUESTION: Sorry.

QUESTION: John, on Syria too. News reports said today that the Russians and the Syrian regime have used chemical weapons on the civilians in Hama. Are you aware of these reports?

MR KIRBY: I haven’t seen that particular report, but – and I – so I don’t have anything for you on that. We have seen in the past where the regime has used chlorine as a weapon. We know chlorine is an industrial agent, not a chemical weapon, but if it’s used in that way, obviously that’s a violation. But I’m not aware of this particular report.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Steve, did you have something on this?

QUESTION: Different subject. What --

QUESTION: Just wanted to ask you why you’re being so hesitant to acknowledge there’s a – you keep saying you don’t know if there’s an attack at all on Palmyra. Do you have – we – does the United States Government have no visibility on this part of Syria, or --

MR KIRBY: Our ability – Brad, I mean, I think you know. I mean, our ability to know hour-by-hour operations there in Syria in particular is very, very limited. So at 2:45 – because I checked on this --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- honestly, I checked on this before I came out here. I figured you guys were going to pound me up on it. I just can’t say with any certainty. We’ve seen reporting --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- that Palmyra is or has been under attack by Daesh. I just am not in a position to confirm the veracity of those reports. If we get to a place where we have a better sense of it, then we’ll certainly have – there’s no – I mean, the only thing precluding me from acknowledging it is that we just don’t have enough information to confirm it. It’s not reticence to do so.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: Does that --

QUESTION: It just – it’s not that it just happened today. I mean, it’s been going on for a couple days now.

MR KIRBY: I understand. I understand. I – if I had better information, believe me, I’d give it to you. But I’m not going to stand up here and make it up either.

QUESTION: It’s about the – it’s like the only town in that hundreds-of-miles area of Syria.

QUESTION: It’d be nice to know if --

QUESTION: If there’s – if it’s – if there’s an attack going on by the – by Daesh, you would hope that --

QUESTION: Is it possible the American intelligence just missed this?

MR KIRBY: Look, guys, if I have better information, I’ll let you know. I mean, we --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- again, we – we’re aware of reporting that Palmyra could be under some kind of an attack by Daesh. We’ll have to – as we get more information, I’ll let you know. I just --

QUESTION: If you need more intelligence, I can send you the latest one. (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: I’ll – yeah, I’ll – we’ll have you come on up and give us a briefing.

QUESTION: All right, all right.

MR KIRBY: I – we’ll – look, as we get better information, I’ll give it to you. There’s not – my reticence is simply that I want to be accurate, not that I’m trying to hide something here.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay, different subject, if I may. Western powers helped broker an election that was held in Macedonia yesterday.

MR KIRBY: That is different.

QUESTION: Yes, it is. Still inconclusive about the results, but wondered if we could get a comment about the process from the U.S. perspective and whether it’s a – seen as a positive step towards solving this two-year political crisis there.

MR KIRBY: So I’ll say this: We commend the citizens of Macedonia who exercised their right to vote in the 11 December parliamentary elections. We also welcome OSCE and the Office of Democratic Institutions and Human – I’m sorry, Organization for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, ODIHR. We welcome their preliminary conclusions that the elections were competitive and that fundamental freedoms were generally respected. The turnout was high, the elections proceeded in a calm and orderly manner with a few cases of procedural irregularities. We echo those two organizations’ concerns about the administrative preparations for the elections, and we urge the next government to continue to work to build capacity within the state electoral commission and to resolve the structural and legal issues with voter registers.

These elections, we believe, are an important first step to move Macedonia out of its political crisis. We encourage the parties who form the new government to work constructively with the opposition to enact reforms that will further the process of Euro-Atlantic integration, particularly with regard to rule of law. And I can assure the people of Macedonia that as they pursue this effort, they will find the United States a partner in it.

Said.

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

MR KIRBY: Is he allowed to? (Laughter.) All right.

QUESTION: Am I allowed to? Okay.

QUESTION: Go.

QUESTION: Very quickly. First of all, did the Palestinians submit, like, a plan or proposal that they want to take to the United Nations during their meeting with Secretary Kerry? Is it something that you can share with us?

MR KIRBY: I’ve – I – as I said in my --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- my readout of the discussion, they certainly did touch on the viability of a two-state solution, but I’m not going to go into more detail than that.

QUESTION: Would that be something that the United States would actually support if they went to the United Nations, in view of the latest developments on --

MR KIRBY: Nothing’s changed about our view on that, Said. We’ve talked about that before.

QUESTION: Okay. I really have just a couple more. First of all, this meeting, it’s called the strategic discussions, is that something that has been in the planning for a while, like --

MR KIRBY: Now you’re talking about the --

QUESTION: Yeah, there were two types of meetings, but the same delegation --

MR KIRBY: There was the --

QUESTION: Yeah, right. Because --

MR KIRBY: Mr. Erekat and Mr. Faraj that met with --

QUESTION: Met with the Secretary, but then there’s --

MR KIRBY: -- the Secretary, and I read that out.

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: I think as you know, the State Department is today hosting a political dialogue --

QUESTION: Right.

MR KIRBY: -- with the Palestinians, which is being led by Stu Jones, who is our --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: -- principal deputy assistant secretary for the NEA Bureau. That discussion will also touch on a number of regional and other issues of mutual interest, including civil society, travel issues, countering violent extremism. We have dialogues with the Palestinians on a range of issues, including an education dialogue, an economic dialogue. This one has been long planned, and this has in fact been in the works, as I understand it, for several months now. It’s all part of these routine dialogues that we have.

QUESTION: And my last one. Yesterday, on a 60 Minutes program that aired yesterday, the Israeli prime minister said that it was the Palestinian’s lack of recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and it’s not the settlements that were the major obstacle to peace and to achieving the two-state solution. Was that an issue that was discussed during Erekat and Secretary Kerry’s meeting?

MR KIRBY: I’ve read that conversation out as deeply as I’m going to.

Okay?

QUESTION: Was there any Israeli delegation last week in Washington in this regard to – they’ve talked to any --

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any. We’ll take the question and get back to you.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: A question about the Futenma relocation issue?

MR KIRBY: About what?

QUESTION: Futenma. Futenma relocation issue.

QUESTION: Okinawa.

QUESTION: Okinawa

MR KIRBY: Okinawa.

QUESTION: Japanese supreme court will not hold a hearing to review a lower court ruling that backed the central government’s move to relocate the Futenma Air Base within Okinawa, making it certain that Okinawa prefecture will lose its case, sources said Monday. So I would like to have a comment. And also, do you think the construction work of the new air base in Henoko will be making progress, or do you think the U.S. Government understanding Futenma relocation issue will be (inaudible) settlement?

MR KIRBY: Well, that’s a mouthful, isn’t it? (Laughter.) Look, I’m going to – what I’m going to do is take your question and have our East Asia Pacific Bureau take a look at it more deeply. I’m not aware of the comments and the decisions that you’ve discussed here.

What I will tell you broadly is that’s nothing’s changed about our importance of moving forward on a replacement facility; nothing’s changed about our commitment in working with the government in Tokyo to that end and to continue to take all manner of steps to strengthen and bolster our alliance commitments with the Government of Japan. So nothing’s changed in our regard in terms of the importance of the replacement facility. But on your specifics, let us take a look at that and get back to you, because I just wasn’t aware of those comments.

QUESTION: I have a different question but in the same region.

MR KIRBY: Sure.

QUESTION: The Chinese military sent bombers and fighter jets flying between Okinawa and Miyako Islands and over waterway near Taiwan. Are you aware of it?

MR KIRBY: I’ve seen reports of that, yes. And I think both governments have spoken to this. And look, I mean, I – we’re not going to broker this incident. We’re aware both governments have been in touch with one another, and I think we think that’s the right way forward.

QUESTION: Did you have any concern about it, or did you raise your concern with -

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware of any diplomatic conversations we’ve had – that we have had with either government on that incident. Again, we know they’ve both spoken to it. We think it’s appropriate for both those governments to deal with it.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Same country, different topic.

MR KIRBY: Okay. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Were you concerned that Trump’s recent statement on China will undermine efforts that the Obama Administration has been made on the U.S.-China relations?

MR KIRBY: I think we dealt with this earlier in the briefing. So – and I’m not trying to be flippant, but I would kind of – I’d refer you back to the early part of the transcript on this briefing. We dealt with that question quite a bit.

QUESTION: Besides providing information to Trump’s transition team, did the State Department ever provide any suggestions or concerns to Trump team --

MR KIRBY: Again, ma’am, I think we dealt with that earlier. So right at the top of the briefing in the transcript you’ll see that these guys pounded on me pretty hard on this. And all I would tell you is we continue to stand ready to provide them information and context so that they can make foreign policy decisions that they know they need to make. And just to reiterate, we continue – this Administration, President Obama, Secretary Kerry continues to abide by the “one China” policy, which, to remind, nearly four decades’ worth of administrations in the United States, Democratic and Republican, have honored.

Okay, thanks everybody.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)

DPB # 211

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 9, 2016

Mark C. Toner





Deputy Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 9, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

NIGERIA



EGYPT



SYRIA/REGION



SAUDI ARABIA/YEMEN/REGION



JAPAN/REGION



PAKISTAN



BURMA/REGION



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



SOUTH KOREA/REGION


TRANSCRIPT:

2:08 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hey, Matt. Dave, nice beard. Wow. In my neck of the woods, they call that a deer-hunting beard. Anyway. Welcome, everyone, to the State Department. Happy Friday. Just a couple of unfortunate events to note at the top of the briefing, and then I’ll take your questions.

First of all, we condemn the attack today in Madagali, Nigeria that has reportedly killed at least 30 individuals and wounded many more. After a period of relative calm for the people of northeastern Nigeria, this tragic attack is a reminder of the need to remain vigilant and maintain a sense of urgency in the fight against Boko Haram. The United States supports Nigeria and its Lake Chad Basin neighbors in their effort to defeat the group and ensure the safety and security of all its citizens. And we send our condolences, obviously, to the victims and the families of the – and the people of Nigeria.

Also, we condemn the attack earlier today in Cairo, Egypt that killed several police officers. And we express our condolences to their families and their friends and loved ones and certainly extend our sympathies to the injured and hope for a speedy recovery. The United States also stands with the people of Egypt as they confront violent extremism and work to defeat this threat. The United States strongly supports a stable, secure, and prosperous future for all Egyptians.

That’s it. Matt.

QUESTION: Could you run us through what’s been agreed for the meeting in Geneva on the situation in Aleppo, and perhaps also talk a bit about your assessment of the situation on the ground in the city?

MR TONER: Sure. Well, the Secretary actually himself spoke to this a short time ago in Paris. I think it was at a meet and greet with some of the embassy families and personnel there. And I thought that he put it actually in a very succinct way, which is what we’re trying to do here is how do we, in essence, save the city of Aleppo from being completely leveled, destroyed. How do we end the current round of fighting, which as I said has completely devastated much of the city, in order to get medical assistance, in order to get humanitarian assistance, in order to get other assistance in to the civilian population that’s trapped there? But also, how do we get access to these people so hopefully we can find a way out?

So, as I think you know, he spoke with Lavrov I think yesterday. I don’t think – I don’t believe they’ve spoken today. And the next step is technical talks to begin in Geneva tomorrow. And again, these are going to be primarily focused on, one, a pause in the fighting; and two, how do we get – deliver, rather – into Aleppo to these entrapped civilians humanitarian aid; and then thirdly, how do we get a safe departure for those who wish to leave the city. And of course, more broadly speaking, we want to see, obviously, political track – process back up and running in Geneva. But obviously, there’s also more urgent concerns at this point in time.

QUESTION: Could I follow up?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Now, the technical talks tomorrow – the buzz around these meetings is that the expectation is that there is an imminent agreement for the departure of all militants from whatever remains of eastern Aleppo. Do you have any comment on that? Is that – can you --

MR TONER: I don’t, and I’m deliberately not going to – and that’s not to speculate in any way or lend credence to what you’re saying. I’m simply not going to get in front of what those discussions are. All I will say, and I’ve said – we’ve said this throughout the week, is that there are issues that still need to be resolved, questions that still need to be answered, and that’s the intent of the meetings tomorrow. I won’t even say we’re closer. We continue to work hard at this. And obviously, we do so with the understanding that Aleppo is under – and this – I’m sorry, I didn’t get to this, Matt, your question – but is still under intense fighting. We saw, I think, a brief pause yesterday, but all too brief. There’s been no consistent pause in the fighting that we’ve seen.

Please, go ahead.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

QUESTION: But – I mean, I’ll take you to what – sorry, Dave – what the foreign minister of Russia said. He said that we have something – some surprise, I mean – casting like a positive or encapsulating the word “surprise” in a positive context, that we might have a surprise tomorrow. So are you disputing that, that something positive may come out of these meetings tomorrow?

MR TONER: Far from disputing it, we’d obviously welcome something positive coming out of these meetings. I mean – and I’m not trying to be glib or funny – I just don’t want to get in front – I mean, we’ve – everybody in this room knows what a difficult process this has been, and so I don’t want to lean forward – Foreign Minister Lavrov comments notwithstanding, I don’t want to lean forward in any way, shape, or form and try to convey that we think there’s going to be some kind of breakthrough.

As I said, our immediate goal is to stop the violence, get a sustainable pause in the fighting. That’s obviously the most urgent need here. If we can get beyond that where we can look at other aspects of putting in place a more credible ceasefire, of allowing safe passage for some of the moderate opposition, those are all things we can discuss. But the immediate, urgent need is an end to the fighting.

QUESTION: Why would you or why wouldn’t you go out and encourage such an outcome when most of the fighters have really left and a lot of them even went to western Aleppo and so on? You have the extremists from Zenki and other – Nusrah and others. They – of course, they’re die-hards; they will continue to fight. But why wouldn’t that be like something that you would announce to the world and say we want the fighters to leave so – in order to spare whatever violence that is taking place?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’re not speaking on behalf of the opposition. We’re obviously in close contact with them. We’ve been so throughout. We’re not going to speak on their behalf. I think, as I said, I’m not trying to discourage any kind of longer-term resolution to the fighting in and around Aleppo and how that might be formalized, whether it means safe passage for the rebels – or the opposition, rather – or whatever. All I’m saying is the immediate goal is a cessation so we can get humanitarian assistance in and we can get safe passage for civilians out.

Yeah, go ahead, David. I’m sorry. I apologize.

QUESTION: My question was similar to that one, but I was going to phrase it slightly differently. Obviously, there are different ways to bring an end to the fighting, which is your primary goal. One of them would be for one side to win. Is it a U.S. policy or a U.S. objective going into these talks that part of eastern Aleppo remain in moderate rebel hands, or are you neutral on who controls the ground at the end so long as you get humanitarian access?

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want to get into the substance or the preconditions of what maybe – we – what we may have going into the talks tomorrow in Geneva. I think I’ll just stay where I was, which is our focus is on an end to the violence. We’re still looking at ways that we can get that in place. Obviously, as I said, there’s concern about the imminent fall of the Aleppo. We don’t know, frankly, when or even if that will take place. Certainly you’ve seen the regime make gains over the past week or so, but it’s been at a tremendous cost to the civilian population. So again, our focus is on a pause in the fighting. I don’t want to talk or get ahead of what we may also discuss in terms of longer-term goals.

QUESTION: Are you mitigating a regime victory, its effect on civilians, or are you trying, avert a regime victory?

MR TONER: Sure. Again, I think we’re just – we’ve been very clear that even if the regime does retake Aleppo completely, we don’t believe that ultimately it’s going to secure a total victory in this conflict. So I’m not trying to say Aleppo doesn’t strategically matter by any means, but what I’m trying to say is it’s been long our contention that even if Aleppo does fall, it’s not going to end the conflict. And so what we need is, whether it was yesterday, whether it’s today, whether it’s tomorrow, whether it’s a week from now – we’d like it sooner, obviously – is an end to the fighting where it is taking place right now in Aleppo, where we can get access to these civilian populations.

Please. Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: A question on Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: Could I --

QUESTION: Syria.

QUESTION: -- stay on Syria?

MR TONER: Stay on Syria. We’ll finish up --

QUESTION: A couple more. I’m sorry.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead, Said. I’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Yeah, on Syria. Do you have any comment on the waiver that was issued by the White House on sending arms to Syrian rebels? Yesterday, the President issued, gave a waiver to send arms to Syrian rebels. Is that connected to Raqqa battle, possibly, or is it being sent to any particular group like the Kurdish units in the north and so on? Because apparently the U.S. is trying to work out all these groups together and mobilizing them for the liberation of Raqqa.

MR TONER: Yeah. So I probably – I refer you to DOD about this waiver. You’re talking about the waiver that was issued yesterday.

QUESTION: Sorry to interrupt, but it was sent to the State Department and DOD because you guys have to approve it.

MR TONER: Again, DOD has spoken, I think frequently, about their activities to build up local forces that can defeat ISIL. And since Syria is a state sponsor of terrorism, from time to time the President has to enact – or waive, I guess – restrictions that would otherwise prohibit the U.S. military from providing assistance, lethal assistance to our partners who are carrying out these activities against, as I said, Daesh or ISIL. So I’d refer you to the Department of Defense to speak more specifically.

QUESTION: But we’re not likely to see an influx of lethal weapons, let’s say, to the rebels in Aleppo, are we?

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Actually, I just want to --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: On that, on that subject.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: So a few days ago, you were asked about MANPADS and the authority that the latest defense authorization act gives to the President to send those MANPADS to the rebels.

MR TONER: Correct.

QUESTION: And you said, and I quote, “I mean, we’ve been very clear that we’re not going to provide lethal assistance to the opposition in Syria,” end quote. How does this waiver the President just ordered square with what you said a few days ago? Are you surprised?

MR TONER: So – no. So first of all, our position regarding MANPADS hasn’t changed. What I said the other day still holds. But we don’t want to see that kind of weaponry --

QUESTION: But it’s providing lethal assistance.

MR TONER: Let me finish. We don’t want to see that kind of weaponry getting into Syria. In terms of more broadly speaking, I was referring specifically to the moderate opposition. Now, we have worked with – and I’m not going to speak beyond what I just said to Said – but we have provided some level of assistance to the Syrian Democratic Forces that are fighting in northern Syria against Daesh. That’s on top of the advice and training that we’ve provided these groups. And the reason we’ve done that is that they’ve been highly effective in going after and destroying Daesh on the battlefield in northern Syria. I’m not going to speak to the level of our assistance beyond that.

What I was referring to the other day, specifically to your question, was about moderate opposition who are fighting the regime in – in Aleppo but elsewhere.

QUESTION: But this – this quote, it’s not quite accurate, right? And then – when you were saying --

MR TONER: I think I just clarified. I think I just clarified.

QUESTION: “We’ve being very clear that we’re not going to provide lethal assistance.”

MR TONER: I said I think I just clarified.

QUESTION: Clarified. Okay, okay. With this waiver, who is going to get those weapons? What groups in what locations?

MR TONER: I’m not going to speak to that. I said – you can – either of you can go to DOD, ask them for more details. Generally speaking, I can say it’s – we’re talking about partner forces that we’re working with in northern Syria.

QUESTION: Yeah, just a few more.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: So the President said with this waiver that it is in U.S. national security interest to provide weapons to Syrian rebels, and I assume that it is also in U.S. national security interest to make sure that these weapons don’t end up in the hands of criminals and terrorists. Can the Administration guarantee that?

MR TONER: So of course, it’s in – and again, we’ve talked about this at great length. One of the reasons we are taking these actions against Daesh is because it’s in our national security interest to do so. Look, the threat that Daesh poses for the region is very real and urgent. The coalition that this country led in forming has done more to turn the tide against Daesh than any effort that, by the way, Russia or any other effort by the regime in Syria has attempted or alleged to attempt in and around Aleppo and elsewhere when they said they’ve been going after ISIL. We stand by our record. We have put ISIL, or Daesh, under tremendous pressure wherever it holds territory. It’s lost much of the territory. It hasn’t made any territorial gains in the past year and a half. And that pressure is going to continue.

Now, how we have done this is by working with local groups on the ground, a variety of them in northern Syria. And they’ve been effective, as I said, at dislodging Daesh. Now, with respect to your question, the assistance that we provide to these groups is obviously done under careful monitoring. But of course, I’m never going to be able to say on any given battlefield – and we’ve talked about this before – that equipment assistance can’t change hands, but we haven’t seen it recently. And in fact, to the contrary, as ISIL has lost territory, as it’s been on the run, we’ve not seen any examples of that. But again, this is a – I guess an area or territory where there is a variety of arms from a variety of different sources over many decades. So for anyone to be able to say with complete confidence that any equipment or assistance isn’t changing hands from the battlefield or wherever is difficult to do it at best.

QUESTION: What will happen to these weapons after the rebels fight ISIL? Who will they be turned against?

MR TONER: Again, I mean, – look, this is all – and this is something we’ve been working very hard on, and this is the last question on this – working as we liberate – or these groups, frankly – the Syrian Democratic Forces liberate territory in Syria, we work to bring and provide stability back into these cities, work with local governments, local councils to re-establish stability in these areas. We’re also working with these groups, and we’ve – this is something that our special envoy, Brett McGurk has – is in constant contact with many of these groups, as well as with Turkish authorities and others in the region, on what comes next. And that’s something we’re looking at down the road. But the immediate priority is defeating Daesh. And like I said --

QUESTION: Nusrah? What about --

MR TONER: -- we wish – we wish that other foreign actors in Syria had those same aims.

QUESTION: But what about – is it only against Daesh, or Nusrah as well?

MR TONER: I’ve answered your questions. Please, go ahead. I’ve answered your questions.

QUESTION: Saudi Arabia, unless there’s another Syria?

MR TONER: Sure, go ahead.

QUESTION: So the State Department told Congress yesterday that it had approved military sales to Saudi Arabia worth $3.5 billion, mostly for Chinook helicopters and other equipment.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Human rights groups have obviously criticized the Saudi campaign in Yemen because of the number of civilians killed, and specifically Human Rights Watch put out a statement yesterday saying – numbering – describing a number of airstrikes that had killed civilians, and saying that U.S. military equipment had been used in those strikes, putting the U.S. at risk for being complicit in those civilian deaths. What would the State Department say to that?

MR TONER: Sure. It’s a complicated question, so I’ll try to break it down. If I miss anything, please come back and – so as you noted, on December 7th the Administration did formally notify Congress of its intent to offer Saudi Arabia the purchase of up to, I think, 48 Chinook heavy-lift cargo helicopters and associated equipment via our FMF – FMS, which is foreign military sales. I think this proposed sale is valued at $3.5 billion. This obviously followed extensive informal consultations with Congress.

Our overall review of assistance to the Saudi-led coalition is ongoing. We continue to have very serious concerns about some of these coalition strikes that have resulted in civilian casualties, and we’ve addressed these concerns to the Saudi Government. We do assist Saudi Arabia with the defense of its territorial integrity, and – but that said, we’re going to continue to press the coalition to remediate what we believe are flaws in its targeting cycle and to take other immediate steps to mitigate against any other future civilian casualties.

And it goes without saying that it’s also important that we continue to work at the UN-led, mediated peace process. I mean, that ultimately is the best way to end the fighting in Yemen that threatens Saudi Arabia.

With respect to – and forgive me, but I’m trying to answer all the aspects of your question. But with respect to how this particular sale might affect Saudi Arabia’s military capabilities, these helicopters I don’t think are anticipated to be delivered for some two to three years. And certainly, their use or potential use was evaluated as part of our review. It was ultimately decided that their role would be to improve Saudi Arabia’s heavy-lift capability and strengthen its homeland defense. And what do I mean by that? In the event of a natural disaster or a humanitarian emergency in the region, these types of helicopters can provide expedited heavy lift for personnel and supplies in and out of the affected area.

What else did I forget on your – you’re talking about the status of the review. I mean, as I said, I think I answered this. It’s – they’re still ongoing. We’re still looking at this. We do want to make sure that – and this goes with any foreign military sales – that there’s always – they’re always subject to end-use monitoring. And we’ll continue to look at that even with existing sales with regard to Saudi Arabia. All of this stuff is under review including, as I said, the overall review of defense sales to Saudi Arabia.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up?

QUESTION: Well, Mark, as you said, Chinooks are heavy-lift helicopters, but you’re also simultaneously selling about 30 Apaches to the United Arab Emirates. Those are attack helicopters, and the Emirates are part of the coalition that have no use for humanitarian operations.

MR TONER: Right. Again, I don’t have the details of those helicopter sales. What I’d just say is what I just said, which is that any military sale is going to be subject to end-use monitoring.

QUESTION: Have you basically told – is one of the conditions of the sale that the Chinook helicopters can’t be used in the Yemen campaign?

MR TONER: Well, I don’t know that we’ve – again, I think that Saudis are well aware of our – I mean, because they’ve obviously been a purchaser or a buyer of U.S. military equipment, they’re well aware of some of the restrictions and some of the end-use monitoring that we conduct as a normal part of our sales. I don’t know that there’s been any precondition placed on this sale that they not be used. But again, what these – this particular type of helicopter is not, as Dave just said, not designed for a combat role as an attack helicopter.

QUESTION: It has machine guns on the front.

MR TONER: It does. For self-defense. I mean, obviously, they do have – yes.

QUESTION: That review of – I think the NSC said in a statement --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- back in October after the funeral procession or the gathering was bombed --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- they said, quote , we’re starting in a, quote, “immediate review of the assistance to the Saudi campaign.” I mean, now we’re two months later. How is the review still ongoing? How’s – how have you not come to a conclusion about what kind of assistance you’ll provide?

MR TONER: Sure. I do believe that the Department of Defense is leading that review, but I’d have to check on the status. I just don’t have it – a status update in front of me. But I also want to be very clear in saying that it doesn’t – the fact that we’re conducting this overall review doesn’t prevent us or preclude the fact that we’re assessing our current sales, looking at end-use monitoring, and being very clear in our cooperation with Saudi Arabia that they understand our concerns about some of the flaws in their targeting approach and that led to, as you know, the – you noted the terrible attack on this funeral procession.

QUESTION: And then just --

MR TONER: Yeah, please.

QUESTION: Sorry, I guess I just – it slipped out of my head.

MR TONER: No worries.

QUESTION: I’ll come back to you.

MR TONER: No worries. I’m here all day.

QUESTION: Okay, on the same topic. Now, we understand it’s some years before this particular deal is delivered, but it is fair to say that Saudi Arabia is using overwhelmingly or overwhelmingly using American weapons in its war in Yemen. Would you agree with that?

MR TONER: I just --

QUESTION: Would you agree that it is using F-16s, Apache helicopters, whatever – I mean, which are American-supplied weapons?

MR TONER: I’m not – I’m not saying you’re wrong. I just don’t have the – to say that they’re “overwhelmingly” using U.S. weaponry, but --

QUESTION: I mean, the United States at least --

MR TONER: We have a strong, robust --

QUESTION: -- is the major supplier of arms to Saudi Arabia, correct?

MR TONER: We have a strong military sales relationship with Saudi Arabia. I will not dispute that.

QUESTION: Do you feel that makes you – I just remembered. Do you feel that, I mean, specifically going to what the – what Human Rights Watch and what other rights groups have said, like, how do you respond to the criticism that that effectively or at least could risk the U.S. being complicit in these civilian deaths and in sort of the inaccurate targeting – whatever is might be?

MR TONER: Well again, let’s – so a couple of thoughts there. One is that the coalition and in particular Saudi Arabia did not choose this fight. This is a result of spillover from the war in Yemen – the conflict in Yemen – that was, frankly, putting at risk Saudis who are living across the border and about, frankly, defending their sovereign territory. That said, we have seen in their particular targeting – and the most egregious example was this strike on the funeral procession – inaccuracies that put civilians clearly at great risk. We’ve been very clear about our concerns, and in fact, the Saudis immediately after that bombing did conduct an investigation and made public the results of that investigation. Going forward, obviously, we’ve asked them to look at fundamentally how they review and how they determine their targeting.

Our cooperation that we provide to Saudi Arabia does not include – and I think we’ve talked about this before – target selection or review. And as I said, none of it constitutes endorsement of offensive operations in Yemen that have harmed civilians.

QUESTION: But the Saudi war goal is to restore an ousted president.

MR TONER: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: The Saudi war goal is to restore the ousted president of Yemen.

MR TONER: Well, again --

QUESTION: The breaches of the border happened after the conflict began.

MR TONER: But David – but – and you know the Secretary has worked very hard in this regard. I mean, there is a UN process. We saw a breakdown when --

QUESTION: But you just described the Saudi action as not of their own choice; they were reacting to cross-border attacks.

MR TONER: Well, that is – that is true. I mean, but this is spillover --

QUESTION: They’re not there to fight to put Hadi back in power?

MR TONER: This is a conflict that has spilled over across their border. They have taken steps to defend Saudi territory, defend their citizens. But what’s, again, important here is that there is a UN-led process that, frankly, most recently took a hit earlier this week. We’ve thought we were close a couple of times to getting a cessation of hostilities into place, but there is a process here whereby we can end the fighting and bring about a peaceful transition, but it takes all sides, obviously, to --

QUESTION: It just feels like you’re making excuses for them that they wouldn’t make for themselves.

MR TONER: How so? Oh, that they’re – that I’m --

QUESTION: That their stated war goal is to restore the Yemeni president.

MR TONER: Again, I’m – well, I’m not going to speak on behalf of the Saudis, but they have also been helpful in trying to get this peace process up and running.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: You said the – you mentioned the hit that the UN effort took earlier this week, but that was landed by – that hit was landed by --

MR TONER: I agree.

QUESTION: -- by the government --

MR TONER: I’m well aware.

QUESTION: -- that Saudi Arabia supports and you guys support and so on. So what measures are you willing to take to give this UN effort some sort of a backbone or ground to stand on?

MR TONER: What – I’m sorry, one more time.

QUESTION: I said what are you doing to sort of give this UN position that was taken --

MR TONER: Well, the Secretary has been --

QUESTION: -- some strength and veracity?

MR TONER: The Secretary has been very engaged in this and I spoke about this the other day. He’s been – I mean, I can look at recent calls. He’s obviously been working also at the same time. But to your question, which is that earlier this week, it was the Republic of Yemen --

QUESTION: Right.

MR TONER: -- Government that said – rejected, essentially, the UN-drafted roadmap. And I came out and spoke about it at the top of the briefing and said everybody’s got to agree to this. It’s not an endpoint; it’s a starting point. Everybody’s got to make concessions in order for there to be peace. And we’re going to continue those efforts. I mean, the Secretary’s been working the phones, he’s been continuing to discuss it with other regional Gulf partners in trying to get some kind of cessation of hostilities back up and running. We were close a couple weeks ago, but he remains hard at it.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Earlier today, Japanese parliament ratified the TPP. What is your reaction?

MR TONER: I mean, that’s – obviously, we welcome Japan’s endorsement of the TPP. As we’ve said all along and this Administration has said all along, we believe that the TPP is important for the region in establishing strong rules of the road in terms of our trade relations with our partners in the region, and that it’s in – certainly in everyone’s interest who’s looking at the TPP and has signed on to the TPP to see it come into effect.

QUESTION: This is a great breakthrough for your policy, isn’t it?

MR TONER: Well, look, it speaks to the fact – and we’ve seen this on climate change as well – it speaks to the fact that, regardless of the transition that is happening here in the United States, and I’m not going to speak to that or what decisions the incoming administration may make with regard to climate or with regard to trade policy, but the rest of the world is moving forward. Rest of the world is, with respect to climate, with respect to trade, and TPP – we’ve seen it today – is saying – embracing this progress. So we can choose to engage or not to engage, but let’s not --

QUESTION: But you didn’t put it at the top as a – as an announcement of another breakthrough for U.S. trade policy. You mention it in passing when we ask. There was a time you’d have celebrated a TPP endorsement. I’m just causing trouble. Go on.

MR TONER: Yeah, you are. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Pakistan?

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Earlier this week, Pakistan’s counterterrorism department raided the headquarters of the minority Ahmadiyya community in Pakistan. And just this morning, the chairman of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom strongly condemned this act. What is the State Department doing to protect the vulnerable Ahmadis in light of a disturbing development?

MR TONER: Sure. We’re obviously very concerned about these reports that Punjab counterterrorism police have raided the international headquarters of the Ahmadiyya – Ahmadiyya, rather – Muslim community in Rabwah and arrested, as you noted, four individuals for publishing literature.

We have regularly noted our concerns about Pakistani laws that restrict peaceful religious expression, particularly by the Ahmadiyya community, in our international – our religious freedom report. We believe such laws are inconsistent with Pakistan’s international obligations and we would urge the Government of Pakistan to protect religious freedom and basic rights of all members of its population, including religious minorities.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Do you want to comment on the increased attacks against Muslims in Myanmar? And I mean, since you mentioned the Ahmadiyya and so on, because apparently --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- tensions are rising, and major Muslim countries like Indonesia and Malaysia are beginning to look towards this issue with concern and hostility, even.

MR TONER: Well, I don’t have much of an update. We obviously continue to call for a prompt resolution of full humanitarian and media access to that region – Rakhine State. I will say that earlier today, our ambassador to Burma and 13 of his counterparts in Rangoon issued a joint statement urging all authorities to overcome the obstacles that have prevented a full resumption of humanitarian assistance to this area.

Is that it, guys?

QUESTION: Can I ask one question on --

MR TONER: Of course you can.

QUESTION: -- Palestinian-Israeli issue? I’m sorry. Yesterday, there --

MR TONER: Elizabeth was jumping up on her seat, but --

QUESTION: -- (inaudible.) I’m not going to let you go without asking one question. (Laughter.) Yesterday, Congress overwhelmingly voted for a $600 million, in addition to the $38 billion into – to Israel, to develop rockets and so on – develop missiles. And at the same time, the Israeli Government is deciding to compensate the Amona settlement people with half a million Israeli shekels, which is like $150,000. So do you think Israel needs the money when you give them $600 million on the one hand, and they turn around and they give the Amona residents half a million shekels in compensations?

MR TONER: Sure. And look, we’ve discussed your views on this before. Our --

QUESTION: These are new.

MR TONER: Our security relationship with Israel is ironclad; our security commitment with Israel is ironclad. That said, when we do have disagreements on other aspects of Israel’s policy, we’re not shy about making those concerns clear. With regard to settlements, that’s one of those areas. But we believe that Israel is a strong partner and friend in the region, and that its security is critically important to the United States’s own national security interests.

That’s it. Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: Sorry, one more.

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

QUESTION: Did you want to comment on the impeachment vote in South Korea?

MR TONER: I do. I mean, very briefly, I just wanted to – I can just say that obviously we have been following it closely. First and foremost, the United States continues to be a steadfast ally, friend, and partner to the Republic of Korea. We certainly look forward to working with Prime Minister Hwang in his new capacity as acting president. We expect and we believe that policy, consistency, and continuity across a range of fronts, including DPRK, is paramount, as well as international economics and trade. I can say that the U.S.-Korea relationship and alliance will continue to be a lynchpin of regional stability and security. We’re going to continue to meet all of our alliance commitments, especially with respect to defending against the threats we’ve seen emanating from North Korea. So I’ll end there.

QUESTION: Can --

MR TONER: Yeah, please. Go ahead, Matt.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up on that?

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: How important – given that the threat that you say North Korea poses – how important is it that the transition in – the political transition in the ROK is a smooth one?

MR TONER: It’s critically important. And it’s again why my – the initial words out of my mouth were to – certainly to convey that the United States stands by its steadfast ally and is there with Korea as it undergoes this political change and transition.

I would note also that during this time of political change, that South Koreans have acted peacefully, they’ve acted calmly, and they’ve acted responsibly, and that certainly speaks to your question, is that it’s absolutely critical that we remain a steadfast ally and partner and that this transition occurs as peacefully as possible.

Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:45 p.m.)

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 8, 2016

Elizabeth Trudeau





Director, Press Office


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 8, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

DEPARTMENT



SECRETARY KERRY'S TRAVEL



SYRIA/RUSSIA



GHANA



SYRIA/RUSSIA



AFGHANISTAN



SOUTH KOREA



TURKEY



SYRIA/RUSSIA



IRAQ



PHILIPPINES



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



TURKEY


TRANSCRIPT:

2:02 p.m. EST

MS TRUDEAU: Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the State Department. I have three things at the top, so just give me a minute and then we’ll get to your questions.

Today the Department of State is pleased to announce the six winners of the 2016 Secretary of State’s Award for Corporate Excellence, or ACE. This year there are four ACE categories: inclusive hiring practices, small or medium enterprises, sustainable oceans management, and transparent operations. We put out a media note on this earlier so you can take a look at that, but we offer our congratulations to the winners. Each of these companies is contributing to the growth and sustainable development of local economies in which they work.

Next, President Obama has designated Ambassador David Bruce Wharton as the acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, effective December 8th. As acting under secretary, Ambassador Wharton leads America’s public diplomacy outreach, which includes communications with international and domestic audiences, cultural programming, academic and professional exchanges, messaging to counterterrorism and violent extremism. A career member of the Senior Foreign Service, Ambassador Wharton began his diplomatic career in 1985. He served most recently as a principal deputy assistant secretary in the Bureau of African Affairs. He was also ambassador to Zimbabwe from 2012 to 2015. So our congratulations to Ambassador Wharton.

Next, a quick update on the Secretary’s travel. As you know, Secretary Kerry attended the OSCE foreign ministerial earlier today in Hamburg. I think you saw his remarks at that meeting. He emphasized the importance of the OSCE’s principles as well as the need for full implementation of the Minsk agreements as the only way forward for peace in Ukraine. Prior to the ministerial meeting, the Secretary also participated in a meeting with civil society activists from Europe and Central Asia, where he had a chance to express the United States enduring commitment to supporting the essential work of human rights defenders, lawyers, independent journalists, and other member of civil society.

And with that, we have Matt Pennington joining us. So we’ll turn it over to Matt.

QUESTION: All right, thanks. Can you tell us a bit about Secretary Kerry’s talks with Foreign Minister Lavrov?

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: And is there any agreement on rebels withdrawing from Aleppo? And are there going to be technical talks on this in Geneva at the weekend?

MS TRUDEAU: So there was a lot of news that happened right before I came out, so I have a few things to say on that. I think as you all know – and you saw our statement earlier – we’ve been working to de-escalate the violence. Our concern has been getting aid in and ensuring that people can stay in their homes. We are preparing to work on next steps. Secretary Kerry spoke by phone today with Foreign Minister Lavrov about this situation on the ground in Aleppo. They agreed to continue discussions about establishing a framework for a ceasefire that will allow the delivery of aid – of desperately needed humanitarian aid – as well as the safe departure of those who wish to leave the city.

As you’ve seen, Foreign Minister Lavrov did announce technical discussions in Geneva on Saturday. The specific nature of those talks, these follow-on discussions, are still being worked out. As these technical discussions are finalized I’ll have more to offer. It might be later today, it might be tomorrow.

QUESTION: Foreign Minister Lavrov also mentioned that there’d been some – that the Syrian army had suspended action to allow civilians to leave the city. Do you have any confirmation that that’s happened?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. I – separately we did see that. I have no confirmation of that. There was a – Foreign Minister Lavrov did say the Syrian regime had suspended their military operations in Aleppo. Obviously, we would support any decrease in the violence visited on the Syrian people. But for confirmation on that, we would refer you to Foreign Minister Lavrov to speak to or the Syrian regime themselves.

QUESTION: So how optimistic are you at this point that there is going to be some sort of agreement on a rebel withdrawal and improvement in the humanitarian conditions?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, what I would say is that we continue to look at the modalities and the granularities of these technical talks. We remain engaged. If we believe these technical talks will be useful, we will certainly move forward with them. There are still discussions that are happening now, and when I have an update I’ll certainly provide it.

QUESTION: When you say --

MS TRUDEAU: Hey, Yeganeh.

QUESTION: Hi. When you say withdrawal, would – that would include any civilians and also opposition forces?

MS TRUDEAU: It would be anyone who’s – who is interested in leaving. But our position all along has been that people shouldn’t have to leave their homes.

Hi, Felicia.

QUESTION: Hello. So Jan Egeland said earlier today, I guess after Lavrov said that the Syrian army had stopped their offensive, that they had received authorization to get into eastern Aleppo. Do you have any – do you have any information on whether the UN will have access?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we saw that announcement. We remain hopeful, is how I’d characterize it, that this new authorization would allow for this vital humanitarian aid to go in to the people of eastern Aleppo, but we’re realistic about the continued violence taking place and the difficulty for the UN in moving this aid forward.

QUESTION: And they haven’t had any access?

MS TRUDEAU: I’d refer you to the UN for details on that. It’s my understanding, though, that the people of Aleppo have not received an aid delivery since July.

Hi, Muhammed. Nice to see you.

QUESTION: Thank you. You said: We are preparing for our next step. Can you elaborate on --

MS TRUDEAU: That would be these technical discussions. That was what I meant.

QUESTION: Okay. And do you have any number of how many civilians are stuck right now in Aleppo?

MS TRUDEAU: No, that would be a question I think would best be directed at the UN. They would – because they would be the ones who would be governing that aid delivery, they would be the ones taking a look at that. I’d direct you there.

QUESTION: And do you also have any idea how many civilians have been killed so far in the last two weeks?

MS TRUDEAU: Again, that was – this is something I think probably the UN would be best to speak to. I would say in a situation like that, in a complex situation where we frankly don’t have people on the ground, it would be irresponsible for me to estimate.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Samir.

QUESTION: What’s the expectations from the Paris meeting on Saturday?

MS TRUDEAU: For the Syria – you’re talking about these technical discussions, or you’re talking about the ministerial meeting?

QUESTION: No, no, no. The --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not going to get ahead of that. I think you saw that – from the statement earlier this week, as well as Secretary Kerry’s very clear position, that he will continue to press forward. We will continue to push for a cessation of hostilities. We will continue to push for the delivery of aid. We will continue to push for space so there can be some sort of political dialogue. We’re looking forward to those discussions. We’ll see where that goes.

Okay, thank you. Nike.

QUESTION: Right, Ghana?

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, let’s go to Ghana.

QUESTION: Do you have any update? It seems that the presidential – or the electoral commission is delaying to announce the official result.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we understand that might be delayed because voting was postponed in Jaman North Constituency until today, I believe. And it’s my understanding – and again, I’m going to refer you to the Ghanaians; it’s their election, they’re the experts on it – is that they delay the results – or final results are expected 72 hours after the conclusion of voting. So that’s my understanding on that.

But just specifically on that, we’d note that Ghana has a long tradition of peaceful democratic elections, and we congratulate them on their sustained commitment to democracy.

This was the best briefing ever. You guys got anything else? Muhammed?

QUESTION: One more. Back to Syria. (Laughter.) Separate to Russia’s plan on suspending the violence in Aleppo, is there any specific plan that U.S. is planning to take in order to --

MS TRUDEAU: As I said at the top, we continue to have these technical discussions, or we are having discussions about the modalities of the technical discussions. As we have more clarity on that, I’ll certainly let you know. But at this, I’m not going to get into specifics.

QUESTION: Sorry.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure, no, of course.

QUESTION: It’s like a little bit jargony. I just – when you say the discussions about modalities, can you just lay out a little what that is?

MS TRUDEAU: So what we are anticipating doing as we continue to look to have the technical discussions that Foreign Minister Lavrov spoke about today is we’re looking for the details of structure, topics, who would participate. And we should have more on that soon.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: That’s great. Ma’am.

QUESTION: Nazira Azim Karimi, Ariana Television Network. As you know, a month ago ICC, International Criminal Court in the Netherlands, announced that they are going to start soon the case for the people who are involved regarding criminal cases, to work on them and bring them in to justice. Do you think that Afghan Government agreement is important, or just whatever they wanted to do it, they can do, or Afghanistan Government also should show their agreement?

MS TRUDEAU: So we spoke about this quite at length when this case came out. We spoke about the U.S. view, that we felt that, as the U.S. is not party to this, we did not feel that this was a step that we would do. In terms of the Afghan Government, I would ask you to direct your questions to the Afghan Government. That would be something for them to speak to.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Thanks. One more, Matt.

QUESTION: South Korea.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah.

QUESTION: There’s going to be an impeachment vote, by the sounds of it, on Friday against President Park. Could you say a little bit about how this political uncertainty has impacted the alliance relations between the U.S. and South Korea?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, we’ve spoken about this before. Our alliance with the Republic of Korea remains strong. This is an internal matter for the people of Korea. We would point you to the Korean Government to speak to this. But our relationship with the Korean Government is strong, is deep, is solid. We don’t see any impact.

QUESTION: And has the embassy had any – or has the U.S. Government had any direct contact with President Park in the last – well, this month?

MS TRUDEAU: I would have nothing to read out on that.

Hi.

QUESTION: Just to follow up on that question, do you see any impact on discussions on North Korea or on the trilateral talks that are scheduled for later this month?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I think our position, as you know, on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is well-known. I’m not going to get ahead of any talks, but our position hasn’t changed on that.

Okay. Hi.

QUESTION: On Turkey?

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: Thank you. Yesterday, Mark was asked about a report, Amnesty report, and there were some remarks. I just want – first want to ask you have some disagreement over the Amnesty report, I think. Where does the U.S. Government get their facts when it comes to Turkey southeast?

MS TRUDEAU: Their facts in terms of what?

QUESTION: There are some disagreements – for example, enforced dislocation of the Turkey’s Kurds. And Mark stated that there is no enforced dislocation. There are dozens of witnesses spoke to Amnesty report. I am curious, where does the U.S. Government get their facts that there is no enforced dislocation?

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Well, I think you’re conflating a couple of different things, so I’m going to let certainly Amnesty speak to their own report and I’ll let the Turkish Government speak to their own assessment on the facts. We’ve been very clear about our concern over the fate of the residents of Sur and other cities in Turkey’s southeast whose lives have been profoundly affected by the violence between the PKK and Turkish security forces. We note again, as we’ve said several times, the PKK is a U.S.-designated foreign terrorist organization. We call, again, for the PKK to lay down its arms, and we ask the Turkish Government to respond in ways that reinforce the rule of law and they also respect fundamental freedoms.

QUESTION: So I got this statement. The question is – was yesterday, to repeat the question – what is your understanding whether there is an enforced dislocation of Turkey’s Kurds? Or do you disagree this --

MS TRUDEAU: No, as I said, the question is the impact on the residents of the area. I’m not going to call out any particular group, but we have been very clear about our concern on all residents of that area because of this fighting. I’m not going to characterize it. I’d let Amnesty speak to their own report, Ilhan.

Said.

QUESTION: Sorry for being late.

MS TRUDEAU: It’s always nice to see you, though.

QUESTION: So this claim by the Russians that the Syrian army stopped operation in Aleppo, you probably already addressed that.

MS TRUDEAU: I did.

QUESTION: But how – yeah. I mean, how is it impacting what’s going on in --

MS TRUDEAU: I mean, I think you’ve seen this claim is about two hours old.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: One, we can’t confirm it. Two, I’m not going to characterize it.

QUESTION: Okay. But that – well, that, in your view or your understanding, does it call for the departure or – of the fighters from the – whatever remains of eastern Aleppo?

MS TRUDEAU: I would let Foreign Minister Lavrov’s team speak directly to his statement. It would certainly not be for me to speak for the foreign minister. As we’ve said, I’m not in a position to confirm that. We’ve seen these reports as well. We would welcome anything that improves the lives of the Syrian people who have been bombarded in the city for weeks on end.

QUESTION: So are we likely to see in the next couple days some sort of an agreement --

MS TRUDEAU: I’m not – as I said, we’re taking a look at getting to a point where we can have these technical talks. As soon as I have something to share, I certainly will.

QUESTION: Okay. And my last question --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- is: Will the United States consider arming the rebels once again or at least the moderate opposition, as you call them?

MS TRUDEAU: No. We’ve had this conversation on it.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: Our position has not changed.

QUESTION: Okay. Because the fighting’s still ongoing in the countryside, in Homs, in Hama, in Latakia, I mean, in many places outside --

MS TRUDEAU: No, and we’ve been very clear: Even if Aleppo falls, certainly the war is not over.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: But our position has not changed on that.

Okay. Laurie.

QUESTION: Hi. Do you have a readout on the meeting that Special Envoy Brett McGurk had with the chancellor of the Kurdistan Region Security Council this morning?

MS TRUDEAU: Actually, this was sort of a follow-on meeting to the meetings that the special presidential envoy had in Iraq, so it continued those conversations. I would point you to the incredibly extensive media note that we put out yesterday from his meetings in Iraq.

QUESTION: So there wasn’t anything different?

MS TRUDEAU: No. It was a continuation of those.

QUESTION: Okay. I have two more questions.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: The – Masrour Barzani, the chancellor, of the Kurdistan Region Security Council, just gave a talk at the Wilson Center, and he said – he remarked that before there was ISIS there was al-Qaida in Iraq, and after ISIS there’s likely to be something else unless we get this right. What he said was that the root cause of this radicalism was a political failure in Iraq. What would be your comment on that observation? Would you tend to agree or you think it’s not --

MS TRUDEAU: I wouldn’t speak to the chancellor’s remarks. That would be for him to explain that. I would say that we continue to stand with the people of Iraq. We have been very supportive of the reforms that this government has continued to advance through their legislative process. We believe in a democratic, unified Iraq. We think that’s the future of the country.

I’d also note, though, too, that they have made enormous gains fighting Daesh. We never said that this would be an easy fight, but we are really seeing progress on the ground.

QUESTION: Because something else not only he, but others – many others have said is there’s been so much bloodshed and it’s still very immediate in people’s minds, in their hearts, that it’s impossible for people to go back to what existed before because they don’t trust – one element doesn’t trust another. Is that something you – you’re – a perspective you’re sympathetic to?

MS TRUDEAU: I think we’re sympathetic to the idea that the people of Iraq have certainly suffered. They’ve suffered under Daesh. They suffered under the range of violent extremism within their own country. However, we have faith in the people of Iraq. We continue to believe that they’re making significant progress.

QUESTION: Okay. My second question then involves the remarks of Henri Barkey, who was – who worked in this building --

MS TRUDEAU: True.

QUESTION: -- under the – in the Clinton years, so – and he made the observation that countries like Turkey and Jordan, which are hosting millions of refugees from this ISIS crisis, their burden is recognized and they get the kind of support that comes with recognition of the burden of caring for these refugees. But the Kurdistan Region hosts 1.8 million – it shelters 1.8 million people and doesn’t – Barkey made this observation – and doesn’t receive the same kind of recognition nor the same kind of support, and the chancellor agreed. He suggested the issue was that these were technically internally displaced persons. And he emphasized that they really did need more help to – for the humanitarian needs of these people, particularly with the winter now upon us. And I wondered if you had any plans to increase your support for the IDPs in – that the Kurdistan Region is sheltering or to mobilize international support for that humanitarian need.

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I’ve got nothing to announce as of right now, and I would let Mr. Barkey, as a private citizen speak, for himself, of course. We’re very cognizant of the impact that internally displaced people and those fleeing violence have in Iraq. We’re very cognizant of the need for aid. The United States continues to supply aid to the Government of Iraq and will continue to look to meet needs as they emerge.

Said.

QUESTION: Just a follow-up on that issue.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: I mean, you talked about the Iraqi people suffering from al-Qaida and ISIS and they – but they also suffered in the war and occupation and so on, and what was missing – I mean, I remember being there for so long – what was missing is national reconciliation. What is missing today in this dialogue is national reconciliation. After all, the current prime minister is of the same party as the former prime minister. What is being done? What is the United States and – or your Administration in its final weeks doing to sort of reignite a path for national reconciliation?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, I think we have seen progress. We have seen important steps taken on reform. We have seen efforts made across sectarian lines. We’re not saying the work is done. I don’t think for any of us in any of the countries, including my own, work is ever done on this. But we do recognize when progress has been made, Said.

Great. Matt.

QUESTION: One last one on Asia.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure.

QUESTION: The Philippine Government said today that it was highly unlikely that it would allow the United States to use its country as a base for freedom of navigation operations in the South China Sea. I wondered if you had any response to that.

MS TRUDEAU: No, I – one, I haven’t seen the comment, so I couldn’t speak specifically to that, but our opinion, our view, our adherence to freedom of navigation is well known. We will fly, we will sail anywhere within international waters, and we will continue that.

Thank you, guys. Oh, wait, no, Said.

QUESTION: Sorry --

MS TRUDEAU: No, I’m always happy to talk to you.

QUESTION: I have a couple of questions on --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- the Palestinian-Israeli issue. First of all, what is your reaction to the passage of the first step of the annexation or the legitimization?

MS TRUDEAU: Now, we have spoken about this several times --

QUESTION: Right, right.

MS TRUDEAU: -- over the last couple days. As we said --

QUESTION: And new measures were taken yesterday and early today, so --

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah. It’s – I would just reiterate what we have said before: We’re deeply concerned.

QUESTION: Right.

MS TRUDEAU: We view this as a way that is paving for the unprecedented legalization of these outposts deep in the West Bank. Thousands of settlement housing units – these are illegal under Israeli law. We believe this would be profoundly damaging to prospects for a two-state solution.

QUESTION: Now, also, let me just follow up on the issue --

MS TRUDEAU: Of course.

QUESTION: -- of the Palestinian delegation coming to town next week.

MS TRUDEAU: Sure, the – yes.

QUESTION: Okay. So if you have any information to – more information to share with us on that.

MS TRUDEAU: Yeah, thank you. This is a question on the Palestinian dialogue I think you asked yesterday.

QUESTION: Right, right, okay.

MS TRUDEAU: So the State Department is hosting a political dialogue, so it’s one of a series that we do with the Palestinians. It’s led by the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs Stu Jones. The dialogue will take place December 12th. The discussion, this particular one, will touch on a number of issues of mutual interest. This includes civil society, travel issues, countering violent extremism. As I mentioned, we have a series of these dialogues. We’ve recently held a dialogue on educational issues which I think we talked about with Samir maybe a couple weeks ago. We’ve also held one on economic issues. This has been in the works for several months and we look forward to it.

QUESTION: So – but you know that the top negotiator is coming and the – another – the adviser to Abbas is coming and so on. So it seems very political – the delegation itself is quite political. Are they not going to discuss issues or initiative that the Administration might be taking in its final weeks --

MS TRUDEAU: As this has --

QUESTION: -- on the peace process?

MS TRUDEAU: So Middle East peace is not on the agenda for this particular dialogue.

QUESTION: Right, but one would expect that this issue would come up, right?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, not for – in this dialogue, it’s certainly not on the agenda. This is very much focused, as I mentioned, on civil society issues, violent extremism.

QUESTION: And finally, have you developed a position on the peace conference in Paris or at least (inaudible)?

MS TRUDEAU: I have no update from what Mark said yesterday on that. We continue to look at it and we’re in touch with the French.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MS TRUDEAU: Michael.

QUESTION: You don’t have answer, you told me, but it’s – I saw yesterday and today that you have 10 readouts about the meetings that the Secretary had in Brussels. And you don’t have one about the meeting between the Secretary and Mr. Cavusoglu?

MS TRUDEAU: Well, what I could say is --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: -- the Secretary enjoyed his meeting with the Turkish foreign minister. They discussed a range of issues of bilateral importance.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MS TRUDEAU: This was on the margins of NATO, talked about the alliance.

QUESTION: But according to the Turks, they discussed Cyprus, and Cyprus, as you know, is a very --

MS TRUDEAU: I have no details to read out on that, Michael.

QUESTION: Is it possible to ask how that --

MS TRUDEAU: I did and I just --

QUESTION: We have this --

MS TRUDEAU: -- have nothing to offer on that.

QUESTION: And also if you can find out if the Secretary met with the Greek foreign minister. I asked --

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Yes, I have no meeting to read out on that either.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

MS TRUDEAU: Okay. Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:25 p.m.)

 

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 6, 2016

Mark C. Toner





Deputy Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 6, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

SECRETARY TRAVEL



IRAN



CHINA/TAIWAN



CUBA



SYRIA/RUSSIA



MIDDLE EAST PEACE



ARMENIA


TRANSCRIPT:

2:11 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Hey, folks. Sorry to be a little late. I apologize.

Well, you obviously just saw how Secretary Kerry spoke and addressed a lot of the issues probably foremost on your mind from Brussels, which is – he’s far better at this stuff than I am, so that’s all for the better. But as you know, or as I just noted rather, he is in Brussels. He’s there attending the – his final, as Secretary of State, NATO Foreign Ministerial, and he’s obviously discussing with allies and partners efforts to strengthen NATO’s security, protect stability beyond the alliance’s borders, as well as enhance NATO-EU cooperation. Also of note, while in Brussels, he met with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini also to discuss U.S.-EU cooperation.

I don’t have anything beyond that. So Matt – or Brad, over to you, sir.

QUESTION: Yeah, I don’t want to go over what the Secretary did, but I did wanted to ask you – I did want to ask you about the comments today by the president of Iran.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: He said that he would prevent the next U.S. president from ripping up the Iran nuclear deal. Is that something in his capacity, according to your understanding of the agreement, that your – this Administration reached?

MR TONER: Well, so a couple things to say about that. One is I think it’s premature to judge what the next administration may or may not do with the Iran deal, the JCPOA. Second, we’re not going to respond to, as we often don’t respond to, all of the rhetoric, political rhetoric, coming out of Iran.

That said, as you heard Secretary Kerry just say in Brussels, and I can reiterate it, is what we do agree about, and that is not just us and Iran but it’s also the P5+1, is that the JCPOA has been effective. It has effectively cut off all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon, and because of their compliance they’ve had some relief on their sanctions. And thus far, all sides, all parties, have lived up to their commitments under the JCPOA and it’s working. So we think it’s a good deal. We’ve said that strongly both publicly and privately. We’re conveying that to the incoming administration.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- I’m not asking you specifically about the merits of the agreement.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: I’m just asking you logistically, the agreement reached--

MR TONER: -- whether they can --

QUESTION: -- whether they can prevent the next – I think we had a long question and answer the first couple days.

MR TONER: Yeah, right.

QUESTION: And it seemed pretty clear then that the next president can leave the agreement if he wants because it’s not a formal treaty.

MR TONER: Of course, it’s not a formal treaty. But of course – and of course, no one else can prevent any other party to this agreement from walking away. The counterargument to that is: Why would anyone walk away, because it’s effective?

QUESTION: And then one other thing --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- that the Iranians have talked about, and that is their ability, if they perceive the U.S. or any other P5+1 party to be violating the deal, their ability to snap back parts of their nuclear program. Are you familiar with this in the agreement? Is this a part of the agreement that is there in the public version or in the – is there anywhere in the agreement, public or private, that gives Iran a snapback provision --

MR TONER: No.

QUESTION: -- on its enrichment or any other part of its nuclear program?

MR TONER: The only snapback I’m aware of is, obviously, the snapback provision that allows us to put back in place, very quickly, nuclear-related sanctions. In terms of them being able to snap back, I mean, we’ve seen they’ve taken steps in accordance with the JCPOA. They’ve dismantled two-thirds of their centrifuges, installed centrifuge capacity. They’ve shipped out almost all of the enriched uranium that they had and reduced enriched uranium stockpile from 12,000 kilograms to no more than 300 kilograms, and they’ve poured concrete into the core of their heavy-water reactors. So they’ve taken – again, in accordance with their commitments to the JCPOA – concrete steps that would prohibit them from, quote/unquote, “snapping back.”

QUESTION: So all this is chest-pumping from Tehran about we could restart certain things within 24 hours, that to you is – they don’t have that right under the deal? And two, if they did that, they’d essentially be violating the deal?

MR TONER: Well, of course. Yes, yes. Any attempt to restart their program. But I think fundamentally – I don’t want to necessarily present this all as kind of us-versus-them rhetoric. I think broadly stating or stating the obvious here – and it’s not just the United States; it’s all members of the P5+1; it’s Iran – we’re all, I think, in agreement, rightly so, that this is working, that this has benefits for all the parties, and it’s in all of our interest to keep it in place.

QUESTION: But in the event –

MR TONER: I’m sorry. Go ahead.

QUESTION: On Iran --

QUESTION: No, go ahead.

MR TONER: Iran then. Let’s finish with Iran, and then I’ll get to you, Said.

QUESTION: Sure.

QUESTION: We’ll go to Iran.

QUESTION: So --

MR TONER: Oh, okay. Sorry.

QUESTION: So Rouhani did also say today – and he’s repeated, I think, what Khamenei said previously – that extending the ISA is a violation of the nuclear deal, even if President Obama were to issue waivers to those sanctions. And he said that they’re going to consider some sort of response to what he called this violation. Have they complained through diplomatic channels officially to you all about extending the ISA?

MR TONER: I’m not aware – no – that they’ve stated their concerns through diplomatic channels. I don't believe so.

QUESTION: But you are aware that they – like they view the extension of the ISA as a violation?

MR TONER: And we obviously reject those views. We’ve been very clear that what we call a clean extension of the Iran Sanctions Act is entirely consistent with our commitments in the JCPOA. And in any case, Secretary Kerry would retain waiver authority and would continue to waive all of the nuclear-related sanctions, the relevant sanctions, authorized by the legislation. And that’s what we committed to do in the JCPOA, so that – we retain that capacity, I guess, is the point.

QUESTION: In the event that --

MR TONER: Yes, of course.

QUESTION: -- the new administration does actually absolve itself of the Iran deal and walks away from it, Iran conceivably has the same right to, let’s say, take commensurate steps, correct, and just say, okay, we’re off --

MR TONER: I mean, look, this agreement is only – you’re right in that --

QUESTION: I’m saying in principle --

MR TONER: Yeah, I’m sorry. Go ahead. Yes.

QUESTION: -- you say that they are within their right to say, okay, we are no longer – we no longer abide by that agreement, correct?

MR TONER: Right. I mean, of course. And that’s why – but what we’ve seen thus far is that it’s in everyone’s interest to keep it intact.

QUESTION: Right. And they have, as you stated --

MR TONER: And they have abided – I mean, we’ve had – we’ve talked about some of these reports, slight overages with heavy water. They’ve been addressed. But so far, they’ve been pretty consistent in addressing and complying with their commitments.

QUESTION: And just to follow up on Brad’s question --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- prevent, using the word “prevent,” the next administration – could he be possibly – I mean, I don’t want you to get into his head. Could he be possibly talking about the fact that there are other parties to this agreement and they can – together can keep that agreement going, even without the United States?

MR TONER: Well, yes, I mean in the sense that, again, this is – we’ve talked about this before. This is not an agreement – just a bilateral agreement between Iran and the United States. There are other parties to this, parties who were, frankly, very pivotal in reaching this agreement, and their interests are at stake as well. So obviously, all that is being discussed, is being, obviously, evaluated by the incoming administration. Ultimately, it’s up for them – up to them to make their decisions. I know Secretary Kerry and President Obama, of course, but others are also doing their part to make sure that they have as good an awareness as they can have about the merits of this deal.

QUESTION: Different subject?

QUESTION: Different subject.

MR TONER: Different subject.

QUESTION: Not Iran.

MR TONER: Go ahead. And then we’ll get to you.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: It’s regarding Trump’s call with the Taiwan leader.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: I just have a few more. So yesterday Josh Earnest said some of the progress that we’ve made in our relationship with China --

MR TONER: You said – I apologize. You said who said this?

QUESTION: Josh Earnest.

MR TONER: Oh, Josh Earnest. Okay, sorry.

QUESTION: Of the White House. He said some of the progress that we have made in our relationship with China could be undermined by this issue flaring up, and I have a few questions that I hope will just add context. So in June, when President Obama met with Dalai Lama at the White House, China got angry and said the meeting undermined mutual trust and cooperation. Question: Should President Obama have done otherwise, given China’s views on the subject?

MR TONER: Again, I don't want to necessarily draw those parallels, because we don’t always agree and see eye-to-eye with China on every given issue. That’s, I think, something we’ve been very transparent about talking – or transparent about. And the Dalai Lama, as a major cultural figure and religious figure, is obviously one of those things we don’t see eye-to-eye about, and we’ve retained contact in his capacity as a major cultural and religious figure. We remain in contact with him.

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: But let me finish. But with respect to – and I would also say that we always, and we’re very clear about this as well, don’t see eye-to-eye with them on – often on cyber security, although we’ve taken steps to address that, and human rights. Where we have disagreements with China, as part of our relations with them, we’re able to discuss these things and lay them on the table.

With respect to Taiwan, we’ve been very clear and very forthright in stating what our policy is. And that policy was a major shift at the time, but it helped us get to a place where we are today with China, and we respect that policy and we’ve retained that policy.

QUESTION: And --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: Just one of those other questions is --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: China hates seeing U.S. warships in South China Sea; they see that as destabilizing. I know that the U.S. has its reasons to be there, but would the U.S. change its policy because China finds it destabilizing?

MR TONER: So again, that is based on freedom of navigation and our belief that we should be able to sail or fly over international waters regardless of where they are. And every country should be able to do that. We’ve said oftentimes that we don’t have a dog in the fight over who has territorial rights with respect to the South China Sea. What we don’t want to see there is a further escalation. And we’ve seen a militarization of the South China Sea. That’s a bad thing. That’s a bad thing for the security of the region.

So what we’ve said all along is that we want to see dialogue. We don’t want to see militarization. We don’t want to see steps to further create construction or whatever or entities and building out of some of these islands. All that is contrary to what our goal is, which is a mechanism – a diplomatic mechanism by which countries can resolve peacefully.

QUESTION: So the U.S. would not change its policy regardless of how China sees it, correct?

MR TONER: With regard to the South China Sea, we would not change our policy. Our policy is what it is, which is freedom of navigation.

QUESTION: I guess my bottom line question is there were a bunch of things that irritated China. Did this Administration criticize Trump for taking that call because this particular issue is taboo?

MR TONER: I mean, this – taboo? Define taboo. It is a very hot-button issue for China, clearly.

QUESTION: I mean, there were other hot-button issues that the Administration --

MR TONER: Of course there are. And that’s not to say in any bilateral relations, whether it’s with China or with any country, that we don’t have disagreements. But with respect to Taiwan, we’ve been pursuing a very specific policy. And it’s not just Democrats versus Republicans. This is both administrations – or administrations of both parties who have pursued a consistent policy with regard to Taiwan, and our recognition or lack of recognition of Taiwan, and our relations with Taiwan. And that has not changed. And in diplomacy that matters. Consistency matters. Thanks.

Steve.

QUESTION: On Japan?

MR TONER: Let me get Steve, and then I promise I’ll go to you.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: The Cuban foreign ministry announced today that it’s moving forward with the United States on developing a road map deepening their detente. I’m just wondering what details you have on this for us and whether discussions with Cuba are being accelerated by both Havana and Washington before the new administration comes in place.

MR TONER: Yeah, so I don’t have a lot of details. I know that, as you noted, United States and Cuba are holding their fifth Bilateral Commission meeting. It’s in Havana. Wait, today’s not Wednesday. It’s tomorrow, I believe, and December 7th. And acting Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Mari Carmen Aponte will lead the U.S. delegation. And obviously, our Charge d’Affaires in Havana, Jeffrey DeLaurentis, as well as Deputy Assistant Secretary John Creamer will attend on behalf of the United States. So I don’t know – I don’t have a lot of details on what the deliverables will be coming out of that. We’ll certainly update as the meetings take place.

With regard to your last question: Is this an acceleration? Not at all. As I said, this is a long-scheduled meeting. I believe it might have been delayed somewhat because of the period of mourning after the death of Fidel Castro, but it was long-scheduled. As – yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Do you agree though with the characterization that this is drawing a road map deepening the detente between the U.S. and Cuba?

MR TONER: Well, I think it’s – in the sense that – yes, I mean, we’re talking about – it’s another opportunity to review progress, certainly, that we’ve been – that has been made since we made the decision to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba and review progress on our engagement on a number of priorities. That includes, obviously, human rights, civil aviation, health, law enforcement, economic issues, claims, environmental protection, migration, educational, cultural exchanges, et cetera. So there’s a broad range of topics. Progress has not always been steady in all of them, but we certainly are striving to continue to make progress on all of them. And we’ll get – as I said, tomorrow I should have a better readout for you.

QUESTION: And some specifics on the --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: -- deliverables?

MR TONER: Yeah, I’ll try.

Thanks, Michel.

QUESTION: Secretary Kerry in his statement in Brussels seemed the blaming the opposition, the Syrian opposition, for not accepting the ceasefire that Iran and Russia agreed on during Vienna meeting two years ago. And he said that they kept fighting and that led to the situation in Aleppo.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you blame the opposition on this? Can you clarify this position to --

MR TONER: I think – well, look, we all heard what the Secretary said. The Secretary’s been intimately involved in efforts to bring about an end to the conflict in Syria. And I think what he was doing was important in that he was trying to provide some of the historical context – certainly we all get caught up in the day-to-day, and rightly so, urgency of the situation in Aleppo – who’s gaining ground, what’s happening there, the bombings, the civilian deaths, the suffering, the lack of humanitarian assistance. I think what was useful for the Secretary to do today is he walked us through why we – how we’ve gotten to where we are today. And that has certainly involved concessions on both sides, although we haven’t seen really any concessions on the part of the regime. But there’s been progress and there’s been steps backwards, and this has been a very difficult, to put it mildly, diplomatic process. But I think he was just trying to provide that kind of context.

What I also think he was trying to say was we’re not done here. This is not over. And I know there’s a lot of speculation about the status of talks that Foreign Minister Lavrov alluded to yesterday. Secretary Kerry did not rule those out. We’re still working to finalize the details of those discussions. So there’s nothing to announce yet, but we’re still working at this. And as Secretary Kerry also said, looking beyond today, is he said this is not – even if Aleppo does fall – and we don’t know if it will or not – that this is not the end. This will not end the conflict there. And so we need to, as he pointed out and Brad mentioned yesterday that he said in Rome, we need to get back to political negotiation.

QUESTION: But in your opinion, do you think that the opposition bears a big responsibility for the situation in Aleppo now because they didn’t accept the ceasefire that Vienna communique called for?

MR TONER: I – again, I’m not going to say that they bear a significant responsibility. I think that they have fought hard, suffered greatly – I’m talking about the moderate Syrian opposition – on behalf of democratic – greater political and democratic freedom in Syria. That’s been a difficult fight, and they’ve borne enormous sacrifice to carry out that fight.

We’re – the United States, other members of the ISSG – are working to bring about a peaceful resolution there.

QUESTION: But you do agree – do you agree that the opposition, encouraged and financed and armed by many of your allies in the area, especially the Gulf countries --

MR TONER: I think – yeah.

QUESTION: -- actually were almost prevented from taking that step towards a ceasefire? You would agree with that?

MR TONER: Look, I mean – this is --

QUESTION: I mean (inaudible) historical perspective.

MR TONER: So yes, in – when – hopefully years from now when people write memoirs and write histories about this conflict, all of that can be taken into account. What I think is important is that this Secretary of State, this Administration has tried to build a process into what is, to put it mildly, an extremely complex situation where you’ve got different entities, different powers, regional powers, et cetera, stakeholders, trying to affect the outcome of this civil war. We brought all of these people together, all of these countries together, governments together, in an effort to try to forge a way forward. We’ve not been successful, but that’s not going to keep us from trying.

QUESTION: So you – do you accept --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- the premise of his question that the --

MR TONER: I can’t remember what the premise was.

QUESTION: -- Saudis or the Qataris or whoever – unknown, unsaid foreign entities prevented the opposition from adhering to a ceasefire?

MR TONER: No. Ultimately, the opposition has charted its own course, and I’ll leave them to characterize what that course is. But the Secretary has also spoken about the fact that one of the reasons we say there’s no military solution to Syria is that you do have different influencers out there on both sides – or on all sides trying to influence the outcome. And so as I said, even if Aleppo falls, it doesn’t necessarily predict that there’s going to be the end of fighting there.

QUESTION: And I have one more on Syria.

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: It seemed like the Russian Government was upset that you and others in the international community weren’t sufficiently sad yesterday for the killing of the medics --

MR TONER: Well, I mean, look, I think I responded – I think it was your question. We just didn’t have concrete details about the incident, but I strongly condemned the attack on a hospital facility.

QUESTION: Do you have concrete details today or --

MR TONER: I still don’t. I mean, I just am going off the news reports, to be honest.

QUESTION: You don’t want to express stronger contrition because the Russians feel you guys weren’t upset enough?

MR TONER: I condemned any – and I will do it again – we feel strongly that – and again, I said this yesterday when I was asked if it was the opposition, who it was – what I can say is we certainly had no responsibility in this action, and we strongly condemn any attack regardless of who the attacker is on any civilian infrastructure, any medical facility, any medical personnel.

QUESTION: On Syria?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: The talks – meetings were canceled, right? And what happened?

MR TONER: I don’t think they’ve – yeah --

QUESTION: I haven’t seen Secretary Kerry’s remarks, honestly, but --

MR TONER: Yeah, I mean, he said – he – sure, I’m sorry. I don’t mean to talk over you. He spoke a little bit about this in Syria or --

QUESTION: In Brussels.

MR TONER: In Brussels, sorry. He spoke a little bit about the situation in Syria, I apologize.

QUESTION: That was seven years ago.

MR TONER: Talks haven’t been canceled. We never were in a position to confirm that these talks were taking place this week. There are – first of all, I think it’s a bad idea to try to negotiate these things in public, so I’m going to be circumspect in what I say, but we are following up on recent talks last week and before last week, trying to work out a way to resolve the fighting in Aleppo – a cessation of hostilities, a pause in the fighting – excuse me – and we’re still pursuing those. We’re just not in a position yet where it makes sense for us to meet. That’s all it is.

QUESTION: And just --

MR TONER: So nothing was canceled or anything. It was just --

QUESTION: With regard to the proposal, the reported proposal – so Foreign Minister Lavrov said, “The thing that the Americans offered on paper and what we backed is now somehow not okay for them. It’s difficult to understand who makes decisions there but apparently, there are plenty of those who want to undermine the authority and practical steps by John Kerry,” end quote. What is your take on this?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not going to wade into that. I’m not going to talk about what may or may not be discussed or what may or may not be on the table. All I will say is that we continue to work through, both on our end as well as with Russia, on practical steps we can take to bring about a calm in the fighting.

QUESTION: One more on Syria?

QUESTION: But why wouldn’t you --

QUESTION: I’m sorry.

MR TONER: Why wouldn’t I what? Talk about --

QUESTION: What is the status of those talks? Why were the meetings, as I understand the meetings – certain meetings that were --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- due to happen this week were canceled? What happened?

MR TONER: Sure. I mean, again, we’re just not – without getting too much into the details and/or the substance, we’re just not at a point yet where we can say that getting together to have these talks would be constructive. When we get there, we’ll do it. And I’m not trying to be – I’m not trying to be mysterious. I’m just saying I’m not going to get into the substance of our diplomatic discussions, what’s on the table, except to say that we’re looking at practical ways to bring about a pause in the fighting. And that involves, as you can imagine, the regime, it involves the opposition, so it’s a mixed bag. We need to make sure that we’re in a position to talk constructively when we do meet.

QUESTION: Can I just ask --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: In the last several days, we’ve been talking about a lot of back-and-forth between the U.S. and Russia.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Is the bilateral, no bilateral talks – did that just go out the window, or is this bilateral in the frame of multilateral but for bilateral – I mean, explain it. I mean, it sounds likes that’s gone.

MR TONER: No, I mean – look, I – Brad, I – it’s a fair question, I think, but I don’t want to get into --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: (Laughter.) I don’t want to – I just – I don’t want to get hung up in bilateral versus multilateral. We are actually still continuing to talk to other key parties, other regional parties. Those meetings, those consultations, those conversations are ongoing. That said – and, frankly, at the time we did it, that if there is a real opportunity here for us to make progress, we said that we would restart those bilateral talks. I don’t want to say we’re there yet, but we never ruled it out completely.

What’s most important is --

QUESTION: You are – so you are having the --

MR TONER: We are – of course we’re having bilateral conversations with Lavrov. I mean, we did – with Russia, rather. I mean, he met with Lavrov in Rome last week. We – they’ve talked on the phone several times, so --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) tomorrow?

MR TONER: I’m not sure I can confirm that. I don’t – it’s not confirmed yet. I mean, they’re going to be, I think, at the OSCE, but I’m not sure that they’re going to have a bilat.

QUESTION: The Secretary is --

QUESTION: But what was it that led you to decide, oh, this bilateral freeze, it’s not – it doesn’t advance our interests or whatever? Or did it just – did you just naturally slip back into the diplomatic --

MR TONER: No, no, I don’t think it was that, actually. I think it was more – look, at the time, it was coming out of UNGA and the failed agreement from – of Lausanne. And I think at the time, the Secretary – and I’m paraphrasing here, but – said until we see some kind of credible steps by Russia to re-instill confidence that there could be a ceasefire, then it’s not worth pursuing a bilateral option and we would consult multilaterally.

So we did that. Again, that generated ideas. Those consultations continue. But we’re just not there yet, and so we – but we did start again reaching out to Russia because, let’s be honest, they’re an integral stakeholder.

QUESTION: I – but I just wanted to – what were the concrete steps, then, that they showed that led you to restart having this bilateral --

MR TONER: Yeah. So again, I don’t want to – I mean, I think --

QUESTION: -- (inaudible) multiple bilateral talks?

MR TONER: Look, I think that, again, I don’t want to get into what’s on the table, under discussion to end the fighting or at least pause the fighting in Aleppo.

QUESTION: I’m not asking about ideas.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m asking about concrete steps, not concrete ideals or ideas.

MR TONER: Ideas, yeah.

QUESTION: Concrete steps --

MR TONER: Well, to be honest, I mean --

QUESTION: I read that as actions.

MR TONER: Yeah. To be honest – I mean, to be honest, we’re still talking about some of the concrete steps they could take. I mean, there’s not been a lot of concrete steps, except for – I mean, they’re really – the fighting’s only intensified.

QUESTION: But you do understand that --

MR TONER: I understand --

QUESTION: -- the credibility of making threats and making policy where you say we’re not going to talk to you unless you do something, and then they do nothing and then you start talking to them anyways – it undermines your ability to, one, hold that as leverage over them; and, two, drive any concessions out of them, because you always seem to go back to them in the same format, more or less.

MR TONER: Well, look, again, we are pursuing multilateral discussions as well as – as well in this process. As to whether we’re back in the bilateral mode with Russia, I don’t think we’re quite there yet. We’re still obviously going to talk to them, but the agreement that was reached in Lausanne is not being implemented, and that’s what we walked away from.

QUESTION: Mark, do you feel that the Russians are buying time? (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: Unclear to me. Unclear to us, frankly. I mean, we just can’t speak on their behalf. We don’t know what their motivation is.

QUESTION: After four years of experience

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- of talks with the Russians, you don’t have this feeling yet?

MR TONER: Look, I mean, there are very clear differences in perception about what is happening in Aleppo, and others have articulated that far more expertly than I have. But fundamentally, it comes down to perceptions about Nusrah and the moderate opposition’s involvement and connection, and I think that until it can be – they can be convinced – the Russians can be convinced – that we can separate Nusrah from the equation and go after Nusrah, we’re not going to get there. We have contended that moderate opposition can be separated. They need – we need time and space to do that. We’ve never quite gotten that time and space to do it. So I mean, these are just – I’m just giving you a – our arguments.

QUESTION: But you didn’t give me a good answer if you have the feeling that the Russians are buying time.

MR TONER: Again, I can’t speak on behalf on Russia. I think that --

QUESTION: On your behalf.

MR TONER: I think --

QUESTION: You don’t have --

MR TONER: So what my answer was – I thought it was actually quite a good one, if I do say so myself. (Laughter.) No, I said that – is that it is a – it is a – there are different perceptions about what is happening in Aleppo. I’m not discounting what their perception is of what is happening in Aleppo. What I am – or what we do find objectionable is their approach, and that is to carry out airstrikes, bombardment of Aleppo, indiscriminate attacks on Aleppo that hurt civilian populations. That we do take objection to or take --

QUESTION: Why you’re still talking to them? (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: Well, again, I just said – I just said to Brad they are a pivotal stakeholder. I mean, I think anyone looking at Syria would recognize that, is that we need Russia’s involvement and cooperation to bring about any kind of ceasefire.

QUESTION: What about the --

QUESTION: You said – on the issue of separation, you said that you agreed that Nusrah should be separated from the other opposition groups and so on.

MR TONER: Yes.

QUESTION: Have you submitted names and locations of these moderate opposition --

MR TONER: So all of that --

QUESTION: Because the Russians have claimed --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- all along that you have never done that.

MR TONER: Again, these were technical talks in groups meeting – both sides meeting in Geneva. And my understanding is that they did get quite specific about where these groups – but again, there was disagreement. And that’s unfortunate, but it’s not unexpected.

Please.

QUESTION: I guess I’m just sort of – I have a fundamental question, which is, like, what is the leverage that the U.S. brings to bear when it comes to discussing with the Russians, trying to get them to stop bombing Aleppo? It seems like it – that – you say that there’s no --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- military solution, there’s only a political solution. But that military presence has given them more leverage in trying to get the political solution that they want. So what exactly is your argument? I think, like, I find it a little bit hard to fathom, like, what those discussions are like, and maybe other people do as well.

MR TONER: Well look, I mean, a couple of answers to that. One is we at the State Department are pursuing – as is our mandate – a diplomatic track. And that’s our goal here, our priority. And we’ve laid out through intense negotiations a way to do that. But you are correct that we haven’t had a lot of leverage. Part of our argument, if you will, has been that if we’re all likeminded in the sense that we all want to bring about a political solution to the situation in Syria, then we should be able to get it done, and we all would use whatever leverage we had. The leverage that we bring to the table is over some of the moderate Syrian opposition groups. Other members of the ISSG also have leverage over some of those groups. The Russians have leverage over the Syrian regime. So the idea, the concept here, the working concept, was that if we all applied that leverage, we could create a cessation of hostilities and get a political track up and running. We --

QUESTION: The Russians are approaching this in good faith?

MR TONER: Again, we’ve been round and round on this issue. I think what I can concretely say is that we strongly object to how they have carried out airstrikes on civilian populations. Whether they say they were intended or not, they were indiscriminate attacks that killed civilians. And in fact, those attacks were part of or contributed to a breakdown in the cessation of hostilities.

Now, they’ll argue that the moderate opposition was – or the opposition and Nusrah were simply using those pauses to resupply and rearm. Again, it’s a matter of – and we were talking about – I was just talking about this with Brad – we’ve got to get back to a place where both sides trust each other enough that we can get a seven-day, a ten-day pause, get the folks back to Geneva on both sides, so they can begin negotiations. We just haven’t been able to get there.

Please.

QUESTION: Change topics?

MR TONER: Of course, yeah.

QUESTION: Can I go to the Palestinian --

MR TONER: I thought it was going to be up and down today. I thought the Secretary had done all this. But okay, go ahead. I’m sorry, I’m just kidding.

QUESTION: I want to go to the Palestinian-Israeli issue for a minute.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: I know – I wonder if you have any more to add to what you said yesterday about the --

MR TONER: I do.

QUESTION: -- the measure in the Knesset --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: -- and so on, so go --

MR TONER: So we’re very concerned about the advancement of this legislation, which, as you know, would allow the legalization of Israeli – forgive me – about the advancement of this legislation that would allow for the legalization of Israeli outposts located in private Palestinian land.

Enacting this law would be profoundly damaging to the prospects for a two-state solution. And we’ve also been troubled by comments that we’ve heard by some political figures in Israel that this would be the first step in annexing parts of the West Bank. And again, it all goes back to what Secretary Kerry was discussing at the Saban Forum the other day, which is the more you create the realities on the ground that would prohibit a two-state solution, then the harder it’s going to be to get to that two-state solution.

QUESTION: Well, people say forget the two-state solution, because they are really afraid that their land is literally being taken from underneath their feet, including people in my neighborhood, my village (inaudible) and so on. Because there’s a great deal of movement, there is leveling of land --

MR TONER: Yeah. No, I --

QUESTION: -- the demolition of homes. I mean, there are multiple things that are happening at the same time. And it’s quite scary, because people feel in this transition there is – it’s a free-for-all for the Israeli settlements program. So – what are we --

MR TONER: Well, we’ve said that – I mean, this is a – this legislation, if it is enacted, would be a dramatic advancement of the settlement enterprise, which is already, as we’ve said, greatly endangering the prospects for a two-state solution. But I also – as you note, it’s changing the reality on the ground, and we’re deeply concerned about it. We’re conveying those concerns. The legislation’s not yet passed into law. We hope that it does not become law, but we certainly hope that changes or modifications can be made to it.

QUESTION: Could I --

QUESTION: The Israelis denied --

MR TONER: Yeah, go ahead.

QUESTION: Are we on the same topic? No, I just want --

QUESTION: No, I’m going --

QUESTION: The Israelis denied entry to a prominent theologian, Ms. Isabel Phiri – she is an assistant secretary general of the World Council on – of Churches in Geneva and so on – on the pretext that she supports BDS, boycott and divestment of Israeli –

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- although she got a legal visa before she landed there, in Tel Aviv. Does that concern you in any way, that this could be used to prevent people that are coming to show solidarity or support to end the occupation?

MR TONER: So we went round and round on this a couple of weeks ago. We obviously strongly oppose boycotts and sanctions of the state of Israel. That’s well known. But as I said a couple weeks ago, and I’ll say it again, we don’t believe that people who are coming into a country to peacefully protest or to express their disagreement with a given government’s policy on any given issue should be prohibited from entry. That said, Israel is a sovereign nation; it has its own right to control its borders. But as a general principle, we value freedom of expression.

Please.

QUESTION: She’s coming in the spirit of the season and so on, to meet with --

MR TONER: Again, I just --

QUESTION: -- Palestinian churches in the West Bank.

MR TONER: Well again, I – we would – anyone traveling on a valid visa – but again, this is – it is ultimately – I mean, we went round and round on this. I’m not – I’m just saying what our position is, in terms of the right for people to freely express their opinions. But ultimately this is – it’s Israel’s right to determine who enters its territory.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Please. I’ll get back.

QUESTION: I just had a question on your answer on outposts. You used the expression, private – on “private Palestinian land,” and I just wanted to ask you: Is that – are you saying land – private land that belongs to Palestinian individuals or private land of the – of a state of Palestine or a Palestinian state?

MR TONER: No, the former. Yeah.

QUESTION: That it’s --

MR TONER: The Palestinians --

QUESTION: Palestinian private land --

MR TONER: -- who own the land.

QUESTION: -- belonging to Palestinians.

MR TONER: Yes, yes. Yeah.

QUESTION: Okay. All right.

QUESTION: Will the U.S. participate in the international conference that Paris called for in –on 20 – on the 21st of December?

MR TONER: I don’t think we’ve determined whether we’re – I think we’re trying to get more information about it. I don’t think we’ve reached a determination of whether we’ll attend or not.

Please.

QUESTION: Let me just add one more question.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: I met today with this Palestinian teacher. She won the best teacher award in the world and she’s in town. She actually has a very creative program --

MR TONER: Did she really win the best teacher of the – in the world award? Is that right?

QUESTION: In the world. Yeah, she --

QUESTION: She gets a mug. It says “World’s -- ” (Laughter.)

QUESTION: She has – oh, yeah, she did. Last year --

MR TONER: No, that’s amazing, actually.

QUESTION: -- it was an American teacher, this year it’s a Palestinian teacher.

MR TONER: World’s Greatest – well, okay.

QUESTION: And she has a creative program where she teaches kids to reject violence and so on and all these things. But – and she said – she told me that at one point you guys talked – or the State Department, someone, wanted to invite her over, and then – and they – like they did not disinvite her, but they stopped the process. Are you aware of that? Would you like to see someone like this come and visit with people and --

MR TONER: I apologize. So we’re talking about a different person now. This is not the individual that was just denied entry.

QUESTION: No, no. She was not – she’s here, actually.

MR TONER: She’s here.

QUESTION: She was not denied --

MR TONER: I’m not aware of this case, so we’ll look into it. I promise.

Please, in the back.

QUESTION: Mark, with regard to Samantha Power’s recent statement --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- in which she said that genocide denial against the Armenian people takes place, I would like to ask the question but from the following perspective. For eight years, the Administration has used all possible synonyms or euphemism of the genocide term that one can find in vocabulary, except from using the genocide term. Now the final – we are in the final days of the Administration. I would like to clear this topic again. Can you please tell why the genocide term was not used for this period of time?

MR TONER: So first of all, your – first part of your question I think referred to a speech or remarks that Ambassador Powers gave in – Power gave in the context of honoring Elie Wiesel’s lifelong efforts to raise awareness about the Holocaust and to convince others to stand up in the face of these kinds of injustices and mass atrocities. And they certainly didn’t – her remarks didn’t reflect any kind of shift in the Administration’s policy.

In answer to your question, look, this President, this Administration, as have past administrations, have repeatedly mourned and acknowledged that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their deaths in the final days of the Ottoman Empire. And we’ve also called for a full and frank acknowledgement of the facts of what happened around those deaths. And that remains our policy. I don’t want to get into terminology or how we referred to it. We acknowledged that 1.5 million Armenians were massacred, as I said, and we want to see a full historical accounting of those events.

QUESTION: Is it relations with Turkey that stops this – has stopped this Administration and all other administrations from saying the word “genocide”?

MR TONER: Again – again, I’ve said what our policy is, how we regard it. We acknowledge the tremendous loss of life and suffering of the Armenian people.

Thanks, guys.

QUESTION: One of the former administrations, Reagan’s Administration has called the massacre as genocide – President Reagan, not the candidate. I was wondering if you are aware of this – of that --

MR TONER: I’m not aware of that.

Okay. Thanks, guys.

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 12.0px 0.0px; font: 12.0px 'Times New Roman'}

(The briefing was concluded at 2:55 p.m.)

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 2, 2016

John Kirby





Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 2, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

CAMBODIA



AFGHANISTAN/REGION



SECRETARY'S TRAVEL



IRAN



SYRIA



THE GAMBIA



NORTH KOREA/REGION



IRAQ



PHILIPPINES



UKRAINE



DEPARTMENT


TRANSCRIPT:

2:05 p.m. EST

MR KIRBY: Hey, everybody. Full house today, huh?

All right, a few things to get started on here at the top and we’ll get started. On Cambodia, we understand that Cambodia’s King Norodom Sihamoni granted a royal pardon to Cambodia National Rescue Party leader Kem Sokha at the request of the prime minister. We welcome the move as a positive step toward restoring political dialogue between the political opposition, CNRP, and the governing Cambodian People’s Party. We expect that Kem Sokha and his political party will be able to freely and fully participate in the political process going forward. We note that more than two dozen individuals remain in detention on what are widely believed to be politically motivated charges and we underscore the need to guarantee the independence of the judiciary, respect for the rule of law, and protect space for the peaceful expression of political views.

On the Heart of Asia Conference, acting Special Representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan Laurel Miller is in Amritsar, India today and tomorrow, where she will join various world leaders, to include Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, to participate in the sixth ministerial conference of the Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process. Founded in 2011, the Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process provides a platform for cooperation between Afghanistan and its neighbors in the pursuit of regional peace and security. This conference is intended to endorse the sixth ministerial Heart of Asia-Istanbul Process declaration and provide direction for the coming year.

And then just briefly, you’ll see a travel announcement from us a little bit later this afternoon, but just broadly speaking, the Secretary is expected to travel to Europe next week from the 4th through the 8th for a series of bilateral and multilateral meetings. He’ll start the trip in Berlin – a meeting with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier – to discuss cooperation on a range of regional and global issues. He will also receive the Federal Cross of Merit from the foreign minister and he’ll meet with a group of young Germans committed to maintaining and strengthening our transatlantic relationship. He’ll then go to Brussels on the 6th and 7th for the NATO foreign ministerial, and while in Brussels he will also meet with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini to discuss cooperation between the United States and the EU on a range of global issues. On the 7th and 8th, he’ll travel to Hamburg, Germany to attend the OSCE Ministerial Council hosted by the OSCE chairman in office, German Foreign Minister Steinmeier. There’ll be more detail in the announcement that’ll come out, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that we do expect travel to Europe by the Secretary next week.

And with that, we’ll start. June.

QUESTION: Sure. So there – a human rights group announced today that an Iranian American dual national and his wife had been arrested in Iran by the IRGC about three months ago. Just wondering if you all have seen these reports, if you have any comment on them.

MR KIRBY: Let me see here.

So we’ve seen those reports of the detention in Iran of a person reported to be a U.S. citizen and a person reported to be a legal permanent resident, and I’m afraid that at this time I don’t have anything more that I can provide on that other than to acknowledge that we’re aware of those reports.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR KIRBY: Sorry.

QUESTION: Iran? Yesterday, the Senate voted to extend the Iran sanctions for another 10 years. What do you expect the impact of this to be?

MR KIRBY: The impact of the extension?

QUESTION: Yes.

MR KIRBY: Well, look, I think I’d say a couple of things. First of all, as we’ve long said, it’s not necessary to extend the Iran Sanctions Act, and we for our part remain focused on the main objective, which is, of course, to continue to implement the JCPOA. And while we don’t think an extension is necessary, we’ve also been clear that a completely clean extension, as this one is, is entirely consistent with our commitments in the JCPOA. Our expectation is that the President will sign the legislation, but I will also note that Secretary Kerry will retain the waiver authority and he will continue to waive all of the relevant nuclear-related sanctions authorized by the legislation as we committed to do in the JCPOA and have long been since doing since implementation day. So long as Iran adheres to its commitments under the Iran deal, we will remain steadfast in our commitment to maintain sanctions relief.

It’s important to note that extension of the Iran Sanctions Act does not constrain the United States’ ability to uphold our commitments and it does not affect in any way a scope of the sanctions relief that Iran is receiving under the deal. Okay?

QUESTION: Could you explain what you meant by – mean by “clean?”

MR KIRBY: Meaning that this was – this – the legislation was a straight extension for another 10 years of what had been 10 years of sanctions. So it was a simple extension. You might recall that there had been some discussion about amendments to it and changes to it. In this case, it was simply taking what was in effect for the last 10 years and extending it with no changes going forward. Okay?

QUESTION: So you don’t expect anything to change, really, is what you’re saying?

MR KIRBY: Well, what I can – what – that’s not what I’m saying.

QUESTION: Oh, sorry.

MR KIRBY: What I’m saying is that we never thought it – we didn’t think it was necessary to extend it, and that even with the extension, the Secretary will continue to use his waiver authority to waive the nuclear-related sanctions that were part of the Iran deal. So we’re – the point I’m trying to make is we’re going to continue to meet our obligations under the JCPOA with or without this extension. We did not believe it was necessary, and now that it has passed the Congress – and as I said, I think the White House has said that they would expect the President to sign it – we’re still going to meet those commitments to the JCPOA. We’re still going to use our waiver authority to waive – the Secretary will use his waiver authority, excuse me – to waive nuclear-related sanctions. And we still have at our disposal and we’ll still continue to use the sanctions that are in place to try to curb Iran’s other destabilizing activities that are not related to nuclear activities and not included as part of the JCPOA.

QUESTION: Does the waiver have any kind of time thing on it? Is it just as long as there’s a waiver?

MR KIRBY: It’s – as I understand it, it’s a – there’s no time limit on it. I mean, we – the Secretary can waive, as was part of the deal. Because there were sanctions in place before the deal --

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: -- and so he can – and he had the power before and he has it now to waive nuclear-related sanctions --

QUESTION: My point, though, is --

MR KIRBY: -- for as long as --

QUESTION: -- the next secretary of state could decide not to use the waiver.

MR KIRBY: That would be a decision that the incoming administration or --

QUESTION: But he wouldn’t have to wait six months or a year; he could – he or she could decide on day one the waiver is – no longer holds.

MR KIRBY: Dave, that’s my understanding. I’ll have that checked just to make sure because I’m not an expert, but that’s my understanding. I mean, but that will be for the next secretary of state to determine, but we believe – well, (inaudible) we believe; the Secretary will – he will maintain his waiver authority and he will continue to use that waiver authority. And again, let’s not forget the larger outcome here, which is implementation of the JCPOA, which ensures that Iran will not acquire nuclear weapons capabilities. And we continue to believe that the Iran deal makes our allies and our partners safer; it makes the American people safer. So implementing – I’m sorry, using this waiver authority helps keep implementation sound and helps keep the deal in place.

QUESTION: I’m not arguing the case for or against (inaudible).

MR KIRBY: No, I know, but – I know you’re not.

QUESTION: I just want to understand the process.

MR KIRBY: No, no, no. I know you weren’t. But I wanted to make that larger point.

QUESTION: John, is Stephen Mull with the Secretary in Rome, and will the Secretary be holding any meetings with Jabhat Zarif or any other Iranian authorities?

MR KIRBY: I don’t – I’ll have to check; I don’t know if Steve’s out there. I don’t think he is. And we’ve been reading out the meetings he has all day; I know of no such meetings with Foreign Minister Zarif.

QUESTION: Any planned?

MR KIRBY: Not that I’m aware of.

Deb.

QUESTION: So Kerry had some hopeful words in Rome. He said that U.S. and Russia had some new ideas, and then he said we’ll have to see if those new ideas get any traction in another meeting coming up in I think Geneva.

MR KIRBY: Well, he’s talking about the meetings – the multilateral meetings that are happening in Geneva.

QUESTION: Yeah, okay. I mean, is there anything you can say to flesh that out at all? I mean, what is – what does he hope will get traction? Is there anything you can --

MR KIRBY: Well, I’ve been – I’ve been careful not to try to get into details here in the discussions in Geneva, because as is the case in many negotiations, particularly multilateral ones, nothing is agreed upon until everything is agreed upon. And so we wouldn’t still be having these discussions if we didn’t think there was still a need to be at the table and that there wasn’t some progress being made. But I’m really not at liberty to talk about it in any great detail.

What I can tell you is that the main focus of the discussions in Geneva are about getting a meaningful, sustainable cessation of hostilities, predominantly in and around Aleppo. Obviously, we want to see one throughout the country, but everybody is very focused on the bloodshed and the siege of Aleppo right now. I think the Secretary spoke very powerfully about that today in Rome. That’s what the focus is on, and it’s about nailing down specific frameworks to make that a reality. So the focus is very much on a cessation of hostilities in and around Aleppo, and I think that’s really as far as I’m going to be able to take it.

But I would stress though, Deb, that we – the Secretary wouldn’t have alluded to those conversations the way he did, we wouldn’t still have representation at those meetings, if we didn’t think it was worthwhile and if we didn’t think that the – that they were working diligently to that end and that there might be some progress. But we’ll just have to see. We’ll have to see.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the Gambian election results?

MR KIRBY: Before we go to Africa --

QUESTION: I’m sorry.

MR KIRBY: It’s okay.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR KIRBY: It’s a fair question. We all good?

QUESTION: Philippines?

MR KIRBY: Philippines.

QUESTION: Iraq?

QUESTION: Ukraine? (Laughter.)

MR KIRBY: Anybody else? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: If we’re moving on --

MR KIRBY: I guess we can go to Africa, then, since we’re done. I just wanted to make sure we were good on Syria. Go ahead, Michael.

QUESTION: Any questions on the – I mean any comment, rather, on the results of the Gambian elections from yesterday?

MR KIRBY: Yeah, hang on just a second.

We congratulate the Gambian people for their commitment to a peaceful, democratic process and the rule of law. We can confirm that the Gambian Independent Electoral Commission declared on Gambian television that Adama Barrow of the United Democratic Party opposition party has won the presidential election as an independent running on behalf of a coalition of seven opposition parties.

According to the chairman of the IEC, President Jammeh has conceded the election and spoken with the president-elect. This would be a historic achievement for the Gambia. Never before has power changed hands through the ballot box, so it’s a big deal. We encourage all Gambians to respect the election results, and we urge the Government of the Gambia to respect the rights of citizens to freely assemble as they respond to the results of the election. Again, we applaud the Gambian population for participating in this election with a high voter turnout and generally peaceful conditions albeit, of course, with a high security posture.

Okay? Yeah.

QUESTION: The U.S. announced today unilateral sanctions on North Korea --

MR KIRBY: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- alongside Japan and South Korea. Could you comment a little bit about this?

MR KIRBY: So today, in response to North Korea’s continuing provocations and in particular their September 2016 nuclear test, ongoing prohibited development of weapons of mass destruction, and continued violations of UN Security Council resolutions, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control designated 16 entities and seven individuals for their ties to the Government of North Korea for its nuclear and weapons proliferation efforts, and they identified 16 aircraft blocked as property of a designated entity.

These designations were made pursuant to Executive Order 13382, which targets WMD proliferators and their supporters; also were made pursuant to Executive Order 13687, which targets the Government of North Korea, the Workers’ Party of Korea and their supporters; and it was pursuant to Executive Order 13722, which targets, in part, North Korea’s trade in metals, graphite, coal, and software; revenue from overseas workers; and North Korea’s transportation, mining, energy, and financial services industries. Okay?

QUESTION: Can you speak a little more specifically on the DPRK nationals working overseas and then also on the restrictions on Air Koryo?

MR KIRBY: Well, let’s see. On the overseas labor, as we’ve consistently stated and the Security Council Resolution 2321 – which was also just passed – makes clear, North Korea’s export of labor generates significant revenue for the government and it enables the development of its illicit nuclear and missile programs. Further, our Executive Order 13722 excludes the authority to target North Korea’s exportation of labor.

And you were asking about the airline. It is North Korea’s state-sponsored airline and it has facilitated shipments of UN-prohibited arms and related material. To support its activities, Air Koryo has representative offices all around the world. The consequences of this designation include a prohibition against U.S. persons engaging in transactions or dealing – I’m sorry – dealings with Air Koryo and the freezing of all of Air Koryo’s property and interest in property in the United States or which come within the United States or the possession or control of U.S. persons.

Any more details, I’d have to refer you to the Treasury Department because this really was issued under their OFAC.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Could you – do you have a readout on the meetings that Brett McGurk had in Baghdad?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a readout. He just got into the region. He is having meetings in Iraq, but I don’t have a readout for you at this time.

QUESTION: And do you know if he plans to go to Erbil?

MR KIRBY: I don’t have a readout of his activities. He’s going to be meeting, as he often does, with a range of Iraqi leaders to discuss our progress in Iraq against Daesh, but we just – I mean, he just got there. As I know – as I understand it, these meetings are ongoing and so I think when we get on the back end of it we might be able to provide you a little bit more context.

Okay? Yeah.

QUESTION: President-elect Trump had a very short phone call with the Philippine leader, Rodrigo Duterte, I believe it was today. Did the State Department help facilitate that at all?

MR KIRBY: What I can tell you is we stand by to assist and facilitate and support communication that the transition team is having with foreign leaders. I don’t have any specific – I don’t know of any specific support that was provided for that call.

QUESTION: Is that something you can check on?

MR KIRBY: I would ask you to – it’s really more appropriate to talk to the transition team about their preparations for these communications. Our job is to offer support whether that’s in terms of facilitation, translation, or context, which we have done and will continue to do. But the degree to which it’s utilized is really for the transition team to decide, and it’s really more appropriate for them to speak to.

Okay.

QUESTION: Ukraine. According to Ukrainian news agency Interfax, member of Ukrainian parliament, Mr. Onyshchenko was rejected for the U.S. visa a few days ago in Paris. And I suppose your team briefed you about the case of Mr. Onyshchenko, who previously indicated his desire to cooperate with the U.S. Government and provide the U.S. Government some specific audio records which could be recognized as the evidences of the violation of the Ukrainian law by the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko.

MR KIRBY: I’m sorry. The name was?

QUESTION: Mr. Onyshchenko, the member of Ukrainian parliament, indicated his desire to provide to the U.S. Government some specific audio records which could be --

MR KIRBY: Oh, I’m sorry. Yeah. No, I’m sorry.

QUESTION: Of course.

MR KIRBY: Sorry, I didn’t quite understand you at first. I’m really not at liberty to discuss this much. I’m really going to have to ask you or refer you to the Government of Ukraine to speak to that.

QUESTION: Could you please confirm that his visa application was rejected?

MR KIRBY: We do not talk about specific visa applications. I’m sorry. We just don’t. We don’t provide that kind of information.

Carol.

QUESTION: If I could just step half a step back and make sure I understand what you were saying when you say you stand by ready to facilitate and assist in communications with the transition team, does “stand by” mean you have not actually done it yet for any of these calls?

MR KIRBY: No, we have helped facilitate and support some communication that the – some foreign communications that the transition team has gone forward with. But I’m really not at liberty to provide a blow by blow of all – all that is and what exactly they’ve availed themselves of. Again, our job is to make sure they know we’re a ready resource to help and to assist in any way that they deem fit, but how they make decisions and how they conduct dialogue and communication with foreign leaders is really for them to decide and for them to speak to. And the input that they get is really, again, for them to talk to, not us. We do stand ready, and yes, we have provided some support to the transition team as they have pursued some communication.

QUESTION: And in this case?

MR KIRBY: Again, I’m not going to talk about specific phone calls and meetings. That’s really for the president-elect and his team to speak to, not us. But we, again, stand ready to support in any way that they might require. Okay.

QUESTION: Does the transition team give you guys a heads up if they’re going to call like the president of some country?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that – first of all, there’s no requirement for them to do that. And as I said to Carol, there have been occasions when we have provided material. So then --

QUESTION: Then you know.

MR KIRBY: -- then obviously you know if you’re being asked for material or support.

QUESTION: But if they don’t need it then --

MR KIRBY: But they don’t have to tell us in advance of any communication that they have with foreign leaders. And again, I’d let them speak to the degree to which they do that.

QUESTION: Has it complicated anything for you all?

MR KIRBY: I’m not aware that there’s been any complications for us. We’re focused, and look, the Secretary is in Rome today. We’ve got a trip to Europe next week. I mean, we’re focused on implementing the foreign policy agenda of President Obama and this Administration, and we’re going to stay focused on that for the remainder of time that we have in office. And it really – it’s not for us to speak to the foreign policy objectives that the next administration might pursue. I’m not aware that there’s been any tangible practical effect or impact by any of the communications that the president-elect and his team have done since the election.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR KIRBY: All right? Okay. Have a great weekend, everybody. That was almost a record.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:26 p.m.)

DPB # 205

 

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - December 1, 2016

Mark C. Toner





Deputy Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





December 1, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

THAILAND



WORLD AIDS DAY



PAKISTAN



CHINA/NORTH KOREA



SYRIA



SYRIA/TURKEY



EGYPT



UKRAINE



GREECE/TURKEY



THE GAMBIA



COUNTERTERRORISM



ETHIOPIA



IRAQ


TRANSCRIPT:

1:42 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Welcome to the State Department. First of all, I just want to briefly mention we have some interns in the back. Welcome to the State Department briefing. I hope it doesn’t get too ugly in here and shock you. Anyway, welcome, in any case.

QUESTION: I thought that was the transition team. (Laughter.)

MR TONER: Yeah. (Laughter.) And so a couple things at the top, and then I’ll get to your questions. First of all, we send our warmest congratulations to Thailand’s new king, Maha Vajiralongkorn on his ascension to the throne today. We offer our best wishes to his majesty and all of the Thai people as he begins his reign as Rama X. His father, King Bhumibol, ruled the Kingdom of Thailand with vision and compassion for 70 years and was a great friend of the United States. The United States and Thailand enjoy a longstanding, strong, and multifaceted bilateral relationship, and we look forward to deepening that relationship and strengthening the bonds between our two countries and peoples going forward.

Also, just a brief mention. Obviously, as many of you, today is World’s AIDS – World AIDS Day, excuse me. And you saw probably the Secretary’s statement on this that was sent out earlier today. Just wanted to note a few things. Thanks to historic levels of investment by the American people through PEPFAR and strong bipartisan support, we are progressing towards the first AIDS-free generation in more than 30 years. PEPFAR is supporting nearly 11.5 million people on lifesaving antiretroviral treatment, and that exceeds the bold target that was set by President Obama in 2016. And for the first time, we have clear evidence that the AIDS epidemic is becoming controlled and – in older adults and babies in three African countries where PEPFAR has invested substantially. But our work is obviously far from being done. Experts say there is a narrow window to change the course of the pandemic and ultimately end it by 2030.

On that, I will go – I guess I go to AP. I’m so confused. Reuters is new; they’re all new. But anyway, welcome.

QUESTION: Hi. I’m Vivian Salama.

MR TONER: Hi Vivian.

QUESTION: So the White House suggested that State may have briefed President-elect Trump before his call to Pakistan to Nawaz Sharif, and we’re wondering if that was the case. And if so, what was discussed?

MR TONER: Not to my knowledge, no. We had no discussion with President-elect Trump prior to that call.

QUESTION: Have you had any discussion with him prior to any of his calls?

QUESTION: That was – yeah.

MR TONER: Not to my knowledge, no.

QUESTION: A question on North Korea.

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: So the Chinese foreign ministry spokesman said today that they view the new UN resolution that was passed on Wednesday as not blocking, quote, “normal trade” with North Korea. And they also said that they believe that they’ve enforced past UN resolutions – past sanctions on North Korea responsibly. What would be the U.S. view on that?

MR TONER: Well, I’m not sure what they mean or what the spokesperson meant by “normal trade.” I mean, the resolution that was adopted yesterday was very clear in the types of sanctions that it adopted or that it put in place, rather. And that was specifically aimed at targeting North Korea’s hard currency revenues. It imposed sanctions – or a cap, rather, on coal exports; also on the export of monuments, which I didn’t realize is a major, apparently, source of --

QUESTION: Source of income.

MR TONER: -- right, income for the regime there. But also on nonferrous metals – that’s copper, nickel, silver, and zinc. So again – I mean, in some case – or not in some cases, but in many cases sanctions are targeted. And in this case it’s the – they’re also very targeted. They’re targeted really at North Korea’s elite and the way that those elite make, frankly, their money. This is not aimed at the North Korean people, and in fact, what we’re trying to do here through these sanctions is focus on changing North Korea’s behavior. We don’t expect that, obviously, to change overnight. But clearly this is the world speaking in one voice about it concern over North Korea’s ongoing provocative actions.

Now, with regard to China, I don’t necessarily want to give it a report card. We’ve talked about China’s – given its – obviously, the fact that it’s a neighbor of North Korea’s, that it plays an outsized role in terms of the impact of these sanctions and – or rather, the impact that they can have in implementing this sanctions. And of course, all UN member-states are expected to implement sanctions resolutions in good faith. Implementation with regard to sanctions is almost everything. You can have the toughest sanctions in the world; if they’re not implemented correctly, then they’re meaningless. So we continue to work and talk to China about how to effectively – more effectively – implement those sanctions.

QUESTION: Syria?

MR TONER: We can go to Syria. Sure.

QUESTION: Apologies if you address that yesterday, because we were absent.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) You guys are really making me suffer for that offhanded comment. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Two European newspapers, the French Le Monde and the British Financial Times, have been reporting that there were secret talks between a Russian delegation and some Syrian rebels in Turkey, in Ankara. Are you aware of these talks? And do you think it’s a good thing?

MR TONER: Well, so we’ve seen these reports of talks taking place between Russia’s and Syrian rebels. I’m going to leave it for the parties involved to confirm these talks and whether they’re actually taking place. I would just say, in terms of our reaction, that we’d welcome any genuine effort to ease the suffering of the Syrian people, particularly in Aleppo, which has endured so much hardship in recent months. So I can’t speak to the content of these talks or the substance of these talks or even the reality of these talks, but again, we would welcome any effort to ease the suffering and to end the fighting.

For our part, the United States’ part, we obviously remain engaged with the Turks, the Russians, the Saudis, the Qataris, our European allies, and the opposition in Syria. I can confirm today that Secretary Kerry will meet with Foreign Minister Lavrov in Rome tomorrow. He’ll also meet with Special Envoy de Mistura tomorrow in Rome as well, and of course, with other multilateral partners in Europe, both tomorrow and obviously next week.

QUESTION: Zarif is also going to this Mediterranean meeting. Is he going to meet with Foreign Minister Zarif?

MR TONER: I’m not sure. I don’t have anything to confirm at this point.

Please.

QUESTION: On Syria. Turkey recently attacked Manbij and the Manbij Military Council. There were causalities, including an American. Has there been a U.S. response to that? And if it were to be repeated, would there be a U.S. response?

MR TONER: A response to --

QUESTION: The Turkish bombing --

MR TONER: To the Turkish assault on Manbij.

QUESTION: Yeah.

MR TONER: Okay. Just because you also mentioned the fact that it was an Amcit. I can speak to that as well, but I just wanted to make sure I was responding to the correct question.

With respect to Manbij – so Daesh is no longer in Manbij. That city has been liberated. So my first reaction is that we want to see the focus maintained on destroying and eliminating and driving out Daesh from where it still continues to – those cities it continues – and areas it continues to occupy, and those are the missions that we’re supporting actively.

I’ll also point out that we believe that all military activities in that very congested and complex battle space that is northern Syria need to be very closely coordinated. And that’s to avoid miscalculations; it’s to avoid the risk of hurting innocent civilians who are caught in the middle. It’s also – we don’t want to see any kind of escalation or any tensions between some of these parties that are fighting on the ground.

So we’re in contact with Turkey, as we’ve been all along, on the overall situation in northern Syria. And we’re working with them on ways to better coordinate activities on the ground in northern Syria and de-escalate tensions.

With regard to – you did mention an Amcit was killed. I think we’ve spoken to that. There was fighting in – well, fighting in Syria – that’s what I – it was the second part of your question. I don’t have any – I can’t give his name out. We don’t have a Privacy Act waiver. But obviously, we’ll offer whatever assistance we can. But it’s obviously very difficult to provide much support when someone is killed actively fighting on the ground in Syria.

QUESTION: Can you be more precise about where he was killed?

MR TONER: I don’t. I know that you mentioned near al-Bab. I don’t have any reason to doubt that, but I’m not sure where, to be honest.

Please.

QUESTION: Egypt.

QUESTION: Well, could I just – one more.

MR TONER: Of course. Yeah, go ahead. Please.

QUESTION: How would you characterize the Turkish response to the U.S. discussions about coordination, focusing on Daesh?

MR TONER: Well, again, it’s not a surprise or a revelation to anyone in this room that Turkey has concerns regarding some of the groups that are operating in northern Syria and the fact that they equate some of these groups – I’m talking about some of the Syrian Kurds – with the PKK. We’ve been very clear where we fall on this delineation. We obviously consider the PKK to be a foreign terrorist organization, but we don’t include in that designation those groups that are fighting in northern Syria who are Syrian Kurds who it also is important to note have been very effective against Daesh on the battlefield and who we’ve supported. We’ve also supported Syrian Arabs, Syrian Turkmen, other groups actively fighting to remove Daesh from their strongholds in northern Syria. That’s where our focus remains going forward.

We understand that as these areas are liberated there needs to be some governing body or some controlling body in these towns. Manbij is no exception. Our thinking on this or our priority on this is that forces that hold the ground that’s been taken back from ISIL should reflect local populations. And when the – when the situation is stabilized, it’s essential that local population is there to rebuild and resettle and restore local control.

That’s always been our operating principle as these areas become liberated, and that’s going to be that going forward. And these are the – sorry, just to finish, conclude my lengthy response. When we talk to the Turkish authorities or Turkish military, and we do frequently, we make all these points. And we’re working through all these with them in what is, as I said, is a very complex battle space with lots of competing interests.

QUESTION: Then it seems that what – that is what the SDF is doing. It’s allying itself with local forces.

MR TONER: Largely, what we’ve seen, yes, that they have – that they have – as they have liberated areas, we’ve seen local forces come in. And that’s – as I said, that’s the ideal, in our view, situation.

QUESTION: And the Turkish allies seem to be – outside of the – outside of the immediate region tend to be Islamic in their – Islamist in their orientation and not of the area, that Turkey’s allies are failing in that regard.

MR TONER: Well, look, I’m not going to – again, there are multiple ethnic groups and – fighting in northern Syria. I’m not going to necessarily say one should be in one place or in the other. Well, in some regard I would say that. Certainly, we’ve talked about the YPG and the fact that we – that it had to live up to its commitments on where it was – with regard to west of the Euphrates and east of the Euphrates. We believe it’s fulfilled that commitment. But I’m not going to comment on the composition of Turkish-supported forces. I’ll just again reiterate what I just said, which is that we believe these cities, as they’re liberated, should be controlled by local forces that reflect the population of the city.

Please. Yeah, Steve.

QUESTION: On Egypt.

MR TONER: Sorry, Egypt, yes. I apologize.

QUESTION: The Secretary in the building yesterday had a meeting with his Egyptian counterpart.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: I’m wondering if this new anti-NGO law was raised and what was the response from the foreign minister.

MR TONER: Sure. So it did come up. Obviously, they talked about a range of issues given the breadth of the relationship, the U.S.E-Egyptian relationship, regional and obviously domestic or bilateral. But he also raised our deep concern about the law on civil associations and foundations, which was approved by the Egyptian parliament on November 29th, which we contend will impose severe restrictions on civil society and may, in fact, impede international assistance, including U.S. assistance, to Egypt.

And obviously, the Secretary underscored, which we do all the time not just with Egypt but in this case as well, our belief that a vibrant civil society is essential to promote good governance and political development and prosperity. And again, that’s not just with respect to Egypt but certainly applies in this case. And he also reiterated our support and our commitment to a stable and prosperous and secure future for Egypt.

QUESTION: Did – any reaction?

MR TONER: I don’t want to attempt to characterize his reaction. They’re aware of our concerns about this law.

QUESTION: Ukraine?

MR TONER: We can go to Ukraine.

QUESTION: Could you please comment on the statement of member of Ukrainian parliament Oleksandr Onyshchenko that he contacted the U.S. Government and provided the U.S. Government audio records which could be in evidences of violation of the Ukrainian laws by the Ukrainian president, Petro Poroshenko? He also stated that he had a meeting scheduled on November 29th with a representative of the U.S. Government.

MR TONER: So thank you. I’ve seen – we’ve seen those reports as well. I’m going to have to refer you to the Department of Justice for comment on this matter. I just don’t have anything to add.

QUESTION: But could you please confirm that this meeting actually took place?

MR TONER: I can’t. I apologize for that. I just don’t have a general awareness of it. I’ve seen the reports. It would be a Department of Justice issue to respond to, so I’ll have to refer you to them. Apologize.

Michael.

QUESTION: I have a question about Turkey and Greece.

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: The threats against Greece by the Turks, it’s an everyday thing, as you know. Today the foreign minister of Turkey referred to the Greek island of Imia as Turkish soil. And as you know, Imia belonged to Greece. What is your reaction? And please tell me if you are planning to raise this issue to the Turkish Government.

MR TONER: Well, first of all, my reaction is going to sound very similar to what my reaction was the other day. And that’s not to be glib about your question, but the U.S. is firmly supportive – firmly supports, rather, the sovereignty of both Greece and Turkey. And I – as to these comments, I’ll have to again refer you to the Government of Turkey to explain where they’re coming from. Turkey and Greece, as you well know, have long-established diplomatic channels for addressing Aegean issues. And we encourage Turkey and Greece, as NATO allies, to work together to maintain good relations and good neighborly relations and to foster peace and security in the Aegean. It’s obviously in the interest of the entire region for that to happen.

Your last question was?

QUESTION: Yeah, Mark, I mean, don’t you think it’s time for you to ask --

MR TONER: Well, you asked whether we had raised this with the – yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. Erdogan to stop threatening Greece? I mean, you have to take a position in it.

MR TONER: So, well, I just did. But with respect to whether we have raised this directly with President Erdogan, I cannot confirm that or whether we’ve raised it with any of our counterparts in Turkey. I can try to get an answer for you on that.

QUESTION: I have another question.

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: I saw a report in Newsweek magazine --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- and I will quote exact – exact --

MR TONER: Okay.

QUESTION: They say that “There is no longer any doubt that Turkey conducts operations in the United States against Turks and Kurds with whom Erdogan disagrees.” I want to know if you have any reaction on this. I wanted to know if you are worried with all of these illegal activities – Prime Minister Erdogan – in the United States.

MR TONER: I’ve not even seen that report. You said it’s from Newsweek?

QUESTION: From Newsweek, yes.

MR TONER: I’d have to look into them.

QUESTION: Please, can you take this question?

MR TONER: I can. I can certainly look into it and see if we have any response to it. Obviously, we would be concerned about any illegal activities and not just connected with any foreign official, but any foreign – or any foreign government. But at this point I have nothing to – I cannot confirm those allegations.

Yes.

QUESTION: Mark, a quick question on Gambia.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: That country is holding a presidential election, but internet and international phone calls are restricted, so my question for you is: How concerned are – is the United States about those restrictions? And then after the president is saying that he can rule a billion year, how concerned is the U.S. at – regarding the transparency of the --

MR TONER: Sure. So you’re obviously talking about the presidential elections in The Gambia. I’ll make a few observations about the elections and what we observed, because we did – our embassy there participated in a joint election observation effort that fielded, I think, some 15 informal observer teams to polling stations throughout The Gambia.

So a few things: one is that we noted and reported high voter turnout and generally peaceful conditions. There was a high security presence at the voting stations that we observed. We are concerned and remain concerned, however, about some of the substantial issues that you mentioned in the lead-up to the election. And that includes the arrest of opposition supporters and, as you just noted, the disruption or blockage of internet, SMS, phone, and social media. Also there were allegations of voter intimidation and – intimidation and the arrests of some journalists.

So we understand that the Gambian Independent Electoral Commission is slated to announce the results tomorrow on December 2nd and we’ll certainly look forward to those results. So again, we saw some very positive things in terms of voter turnout and the calm atmosphere in which the elections took place; those are all positives. But again, in the run-up to the election, we did have some concerns about undue pressure, intimidation, and as I mentioned, the disruption of internet services, phone services, et cetera that may have disrupted the flow of information to voters.

QUESTION: Yesterday, you were asked about a Maryland, U.S. --

MR TONER: I was.

QUESTION: Do you have any update on that case?

MR TONER: I sure do. Hold on. Let me get that for you.

So yeah, you mentioned – you’re referring to Fanta Jawara, yes, who was, as I mentioned yesterday – this is an American citizen who was found guilty of multiple charges, including unlawful assembly and inciting violence, on July 20th, 2016, and she was sentenced at that time to three years in prison. So we call on the government of The Gambia to immediately release all political prisoners, and that includes Ms. Jawara and the 29 other individuals who were sentenced in July as well, as all the protesters arrested during the April and May demonstrations. These prisoners, we believe, must be treated humanely and given timely access to medical care, but as I said, we call for their immediate release. And we continue – we have had some consular access, but we continue to request periodic consular access to Ms. Jawara with the Gambian Government. So I was asked I think yesterday what our feeling was about Ms. Jawara’s sentencing, and as I said, our call is – our response is that we call for her immediate release.

QUESTION: So does that mean that because you call the release of her – does that say the U.S. think the charges are not lawful?

MR TONER: Well, again, we’ve raised our concerns, and I think our concerns were focused primarily on the harsh sentences that were handed out for individuals whose only crime was peacefully protesting. So a three-year or even more sentence for, again, peaceful political protests is what we found to be objectionable.

Thanks. Yes.

QUESTION: Do you have any comment on the proposed fix by Senator – Senators McCain and Graham for the JASTA legislation they spoke about yesterday?

MR TONER: Yeah. So we are aware of the proposal to amend, as you said, Justice Against Sponsors of Terror Act, which is JASTA – known by its acronym. So it’s pending legislation; I’m not in a position where I can comment on the details of that proposal. In general, I can say that the Department of State continues to be interested in working with Congress to modify legislation – the – sorry – the legislation, JASTA, in a way that respects and honors the needs of victims of 9/11 without eroding the sovereign immunity principle that obviously concerns national – U.S. national security interests, because it protects the United States and our personnel overseas. And as we’ve said before, the United States has really the most to lose from the erosion of sovereign immunity given our extensive activities overseas. So we’re going to continue to work with Congress to see if it’s possible to craft changes that would mitigate the potential harm to U.S. interests.

So I’ll leave it there. Again, I can’t get into the specifics of what they’re proposing. As the legislation – if the legislation gets passed, then at that point we’ll be able to comment on it. But we are engaged on it.

Steve.

QUESTION: Back to Africa. The chairman of the Oromo Federalist Congress opposition group in Ethiopia has been arrested. Gudina is well known, I think, in this building; has had meetings here and on Capitol Hill in the past; allegedly has met with or communicated with banned terrorist organizations.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Any information on that?

MR TONER: Yeah, we do, actually. We’re obviously aware that, as you noted, Oromo Federal Congress chairman Dr. Merera Gudina has been detained by the Ethiopian Government. We’re concerned about this report. We strongly encourage the government to make public any charges it has brought against Dr. Merera. If true, this arrest is yet another example of increasing restrictions on independent voices in Ethiopia and, frankly, further reinforces our view that Ethiopia’s declared state of emergency is perhaps being used to silence dissent and deny the constitutionally protected rights of Ethiopia’s citizens. And that’s contrary, I would say, to the promises of political reform made by the Ethiopian Government when the state of emergency was announced, so we’re watching it very closely.

Yes.

QUESTION: Brett McGurk is in Baghdad, as you know.

MR TONER: He is.

QUESTION: Do you have a readout on his meetings there?

MR TONER: I don’t have a readout yet. I think he just arrived. Let me see real quick – yeah, he just arrived in Baghdad today, so he’s going to have a week on consultations on – specifically focused on the Mosul operations, but also, of course, our longer-term efforts to support stabilization efforts in the wake after – of ISIL’s defeat. So no readout at this point; I think he just hit the ground and we’ll update as necessary.

QUESTION: Will he also be – planning to go to Erbil?

MR TONER: I don’t have anything to announce. He goes to Iraq. He always tries to include Erbil in his itinerary, but I don’t have anything to confirm at this point.

Is that it, guys? Thank you. Great.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:10 p.m.)

 

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

Daily Press Briefings : Daily Press Briefing - November 30, 2016

Mark C. Toner





Deputy Spokesperson


Daily Press Briefing





Washington, DC





November 30, 2016











Index for Today's Briefing

SYRIA/UNITED NATIONS



THE GAMBIA



INDIA



PAKISTAN



DEPARTMENT



EGYPT



TURKEY



CYPRUS



NORTH KOREA


TRANSCRIPT:

1:48 p.m. EST

MR TONER: Man. We don’t even attract Reuters and AFP anymore. That’s pretty sad times.

QUESTION: (Inaudible.)

MR TONER: But welcome to everyone who did show up in the briefing today. And I do want to note, before we get into your questions, that AP correspondent Matt Lee and his wife Amanda are the proud parents of Vaille Olivia Meister Lee, who was born early this morning at seven pounds, four ounces. So that’s a bit of good news that we can offer this morning. I think they’re all resting comfortably after the event, and indeed, we welcome this good news. And I can say it was broken by – the story was broken by AP, by Brad. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: I’ll pass it on. I’m sure he’s secretly watching.

MR TONER: (Laughter.) I’m sure. I hope to god he’s not. Anyway, Brad, over to you.

QUESTION: Can you just update us on anything you are doing or not doing regarding Syria? We know you had the talks in Geneva. Have they made any progress? And has there been any further communications with the Russians? Will there be a meeting in Rome, perhaps, among the Secretary and the foreign minister?

MR TONER: Sure. I don’t have anything to announce yet regarding Rome – I’ll start there – but I can’t rule it out. I don’t have any phone calls or other conversations to read out since I think Kirby mentioned earlier this week. As I think many of you know, there was some action today up at the UN. There was a UN Security Council emergency meeting on Aleppo and our Ambassador Sam Power spoke as – during that meeting. It was an emergency meeting by the, as I said, UN Security Council given the rapidly deteriorating, very dire situation in and around Aleppo. But again, these are a chance for us to highlight what’s happening on the ground in Aleppo and call for an end to the violence.

With regard to other meetings or events on the ground, I don’t have much to update on beyond that, except that we do continue to meet in our multilateral setting in Geneva.

QUESTION: Just big picture --

MR TONER: Please.

QUESTION: -- how optimistic are you of any of these efforts doing anything to stop the violence in Aleppo right now?

MR TONER: Well, look – I mean, Brad, we’re still pursuing this effort, and we wouldn’t be doing so if we didn’t believe there was at least a chance. We’ve been clear all along, and been very consistent in our message to both the regime and to Russia, that there can be no military solution to what’s happening in Syria regardless of how much progress they appear to have made with regard to Aleppo. And again, it goes back to the fact that all the parties who are a part of the ISSG, the International Syria Support Group, agreed that there was no military solution to what’s happening in Aleppo. And that includes Russia. So we continue to call for an end to the violence, we continue to call for humanitarian assistance to reach the beleaguered citizens of Aleppo, and we’re going to continue to pursue the reinstatement of a credible ceasefire or cessation of hostilities in Aleppo in our discussions in Geneva. Those are ongoing, but as yet they haven’t reached – they haven’t made the progress we’d like to see them make.

Go ahead.

QUESTION: This came up a while ago, about a U.S. – I don’t know if you have anything new – about a U.S. citizen from Maryland that was arrested in The Gambia. Can you check and see if you have anything? There are some reports that --

MR TONER: Yeah, sure.

QUESTION: -- she was arrested along --

MR TONER: I’m aware of the case, yeah.

QUESTION: -- she was arrested along with Ousainou Darboe. Her name is Fanta Jawara.

MR TONER: Fanta Darboe Jawara, yeah.

QUESTION: Yeah. And there --

MR TONER: Go ahead.

QUESTION: There are some reports that if the president kind of wins re-election, that he’s going to assassinate these opposition leaders who they arrested, and his fellow inmates, of which she is one of them. So I was just wondering if you have an update on the case. Have you heard about this? Are there concerns?

MR TONER: I don’t. I haven’t seen those reports. We’ll certainly look into them. As you probably know, Fanta Jawara was found guilty of multiple charges, including unlawful assembly and inciting violence. I think that was in July – July of this past year. And the judge sentenced her to three years in prison.

QUESTION: Well, she maintains that the only thing she did was, like, that she was alongside this opposition guy who was arrested.

MR TONER: No, obviously, as I said, I’m aware of the case. I’m not aware of these recent reports or allegations. We can look into them, see if we have anything additional to add.

QUESTION: Do you – have you maintained that this was a – that rule of law was applied in this case, or do you think that this case was – that she was not necessarily guilty of --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- what she was charged with?

MR TONER: Well, look, we’ve raised our concerns about the case and about the need to follow rule of law or due process to the Gambian Government.

QUESTION: Well, what are your concerns --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: What are your concerns about the case? That due law – due process and the rule of law was not applied?

MR TONER: Well, no, we – look, I mean, in any case like this, when there’s an American citizen arrested overseas, obviously one of the things, first and foremost, is access to that individual. We were able to have access to her. I think we met with her 10 times now. This is probably old – probably been additional times since then, but 10 times since her arrest. We were able to provide her with consular assistance. We were able to attend her court hearings. And I think on November 21st, a consular officer met with her at her most recent hearing.

We’re monitoring the case. We are concerned about due process, as we are in any case abroad. We’ve made those concerns clear to the Gambian Government. Now, with respect to these new allegations, we can certainly look into them.

QUESTION: Okay, I understand. But when you say you’re concerned about due process, are you just – are you just wanting to ensure that due process is followed and the rule of law is followed, or are you suggesting that it was not applied in this case and you have concerns about the conviction?

MR TONER: We want to – the former. We want to make sure that due process is followed in any case.

QUESTION: So you don’t have any concerns about the conviction?

MR TONER: Not that I’m aware of. If that’s different, then I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Can you check?

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: New subject.

MR TONER: Sure, Goyal. Go ahead.

QUESTION: South Asia – two questions, Mark. Thank you, sir.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: There was a wakeup call and a surgical strike by Prime Minister Modi against black market money or black money in India, and that was called for the terrorists and black-marketers and people who didn’t pay taxes and also hiding or doing business under the table. And he was praised by the IMF, saying that any country doing business – huge business – under the table cannot progress, and we are with India as far as this. And I’ve been saying for 25 years against corruption by the politicians in India and also black market money. So any U.S. --

MR TONER: You were a voice in the wilderness then. Yeah.

QUESTION: (Laughter.) Thank you, sir. Any U.S. impact as far as this blocking 500 rupees and 1,000 rupees? And because there is --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- chaos in India, but mostly – 92 percent – Indians are supporting Prime Minister Modi.

MR TONER: Well, you’re right, and you’re right that this recent action followed on a series of steps that the Modi government took over the past two years to reduce black market money, and I think it also included a four-month amnesty for tax evaders in India, which resulted in I think the disclosure or declaration of billions of dollars in hidden assets. This was an action – I’m talking about the discontinuance of the 500 and 1,000 rupee notes – designed to target illicit cash proceeds from corruption and tax dodging.

And with respect to your question about the impact on American citizens, we got this question I think the day that this was announced. And indeed, as it was an inconvenience for many Indians, it was an inconvenience for Americans who were also there, and we actually put out a statement through our U.S. embassy to American citizens in India about the changes. Again, this was, we believe, an important and necessary step to crack down on this – illegal actions or illicit actions. American citizens who are working and living in India I think have the proper information now to exchange those notes or to get new notes, and it’s a little bit of an adjustment, just as it was an inconvenience, I’m sure, for many Indians, but I think a necessary one to address the corruption.

QUESTION: Is the U.S. embassy providing any help to American citizens there if they are stuck with – in these long lines and all that?

MR TONER: You’re talking about any help for the Indians or for the Americans?

QUESTION: Americans there.

MR TONER: No, I mean, look, in any case such as this, the embassy’s role would be to simply inform American citizens residing or visiting in India of these changes and, again, how they can replace their notes and just the process into how to do that.

QUESTION: And one question on Pakistan: As far as terrorism is concerned or counterterrorism with the U.S. and Pakistan is concerned, there had been many cases where people who got training in Pakistan and also financed by Saudis, some – including this Ohio and California and all that, and now there is a – is Pakistan getting – and there was also a report on Twitter – is Pakistan getting any message that most of the people go there and get trainings and they hit U.S. interests here and also abroad, and also at the same time, finally now Pakistan has a new army chief, Mr. Qamar Bajwa.

MR TONER: Bajwa, yes.

QUESTION: Any change under his leadership because Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and many in the country were seeking --

MR TONER: Well – sure.

QUESTION: -- not to have anybody anti-India general in the future.

MR TONER: Okay. So starting with your second question first, he did just – he was just appointed at the end of November, so let’s give this gentleman a chance to get up to speed, but we certainly congratulate him on the appointment and welcome his – the transition to a new chief of army staff.

With respect to your first question, I’ll have to just say that I think you’re referring to several cases, one of which is still an ongoing investigation, so I’m not going to address some of the assumptions in your question with regard to the motivation behind these actions or where these people may have received any sort of training. I think those are allegations that we’re just not able – law enforcement’s not able to confirm at this juncture.

With respect to our counterterrorism cooperation with Pakistan, that’s ongoing. We work with them quite closely. They’re aware of some of our concerns, which include a safe haven for some terrorist groups that are active in the region. But again, as Kirby and I both made clear many times from this podium, Pakistan’s also paid the price of terrorism. It’s in their interests, obviously, to crack down on any terrorist group that may be finding safe haven within its borders.

Please, then I’ll get to you, Justin. Sorry.

QUESTION: I’m sorry if you talked about this already --

MR TONER: That’s okay.

QUESTION: -- but is there any new updates on the transition team that’s been here at State? Are they having meetings with officials in the building? What’s the latest on what’s going on?

MR TONER: No, I haven’t – let me – I mean, I don’t think I have much beyond what we’ve said, which is that they’re here, obviously. They arrived in the State Department. I would have to refer you to that transition team for more specifics about their planning and their actions. Everybody in the State Department obviously stands ready to brief them.

QUESTION: No, I understand that you stand ready --

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: -- but have you briefed them?

MR TONER: Again, I’m not – I don’t have a list in front of me. I can certainly try to do that. I think Kirby’s --

QUESTION: Yeah, if you could give a little bit more of a --

MR TONER: -- looked at that as well.

QUESTION: -- kind of update of --

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: -- where things are in terms of --

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: I understand that they have arrived and they’re probably reading memos and stuff, but have they under – started undergoing briefings with --

MR TONER: Right.

QUESTION: -- officials in the building, which you said --

MR TONER: Again, I don’t want --

QUESTION: -- was expected.

MR TONER: Yeah. No, no, I don’t want to give a – sorry, but – and I don’t want to give a – necessarily a play-by-play. My understanding is they’re in the building, they’re reading, I’m not sure – and getting up to speed, as you can expect. I’m not sure that they’ve actually started having these kinds of individual or briefings with the various bureaus or with senior leadership. I can see if I can confirm that.

QUESTION: Yeah. If you could, please.

MR TONER: Yeah.

Please.

QUESTION: So if they’re in the building and they’re not getting – what are they doing all day?

MR TONER: Again, that’s for them to speak to.

QUESTION: So then you don’t – they haven’t had any meetings?

MR TONER: I just – I don’t have anything to confirm right now in front of me, sorry. I don’t know if they’ve started --

QUESTION: So it’s possible they’ve had a lot of meetings; you just can’t say if they’ve had any meetings?

MR TONER: I’m not aware they’ve had a lot of meetings. Again, I also don’t want to speak on their behalf --

QUESTION: Okay.

MR TONER: -- and I also don’t want to give a play-by-play. But Justin, you had a question? Now, you’ve already – I’ve lost you? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yeah. Well, they won’t come here and brief us, then, will they, if you can’t speak on their behalf?

MR TONER: Normally, they would not do that.

QUESTION: They would not, okay.

MR TONER: But we can --

QUESTION: But we’re asking you to speak on your behalf. Are you briefing them? That’s not on their behalf, that’s on your – you’re the briefer.

MR TONER: So they’re here. They’re settling in. I’m not aware of any briefing --

QUESTION: That’s speaking on their behalf.

MR TONER: No, I’m not aware of any – that we’ve briefed them to any extent so far. If that’s changed or that’s different, I’ll let you know.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Mark, my other question was just back to the OSU --

MR TONER: Please, yeah.

QUESTION: -- shooting and wondering if now that we’re hearing – and understanding that the investigation’s not complete – but hearing that there are strong indications this person was radicalized and inspired by al-Qaida or ISIS, does this type of incident trigger any, like, revisiting the vetting process and how that works with refugees, or does it just – is that system in place and working perfectly well in your mind?

MR TONER: Sure. So to talk about your broader question and not necessarily this case, because obviously I don’t want to insert myself into this case and that is still, as I noted earlier, under active investigation, I guess my short answer is of course, we’re always assessing and improving the vetting system.

But at the same time, let’s be clear that it’s still the most stringent vetting system for any person arriving from abroad into the United States – whether they be traveler or intending immigrant – and we stand by the integrity of that system. So we’re always, of course, looking to improve it, and that includes across the interagency how we look at the information, how we get the information on some of these individuals who may come from areas where there’s not a full set of bio data on them, and how we, again, cross-check that through the various interagency, through the various different interested parties, and ensure that these individuals coming into the United States are safe.

QUESTION: Mark.

MR TONER: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: What’s on the agenda in the bilateral meeting between the Secretary and the Egyptian foreign minister beside the signing of the --

MR TONER: Oh, don’t take away my signing comments. (Laughter.) That was my big thing. I was going to do a topper on that if I can find it – that’s the whole thing. So like it or not, I’m going to give you the information on the cultural property agreement. Actually, it is a significant thing and worth noting.

So Secretary Kerry and Egyptian Foreign Minister Shoukry will sign the U.S.-Egyptian cultural property agreement today – later today. And the agreement will promote collaboration on fighting illicit trafficking in Egyptian artifacts. And it underscores the United States commitment to our relationship with Egypt as well as our global commitment to cultural heritage protection and preservation. And under the agreement, the United States will impose import restrictions on archeological material representing Egypt’s cultural heritage dating from 5200 B.C. through 1517 A.D. And Brad, you’re not allowed to ask me why those dates, because I don’t have an answer for you. But these restrictions are intended to reduce incentive for pillage and trafficking and are frankly one of the many ways that the United States is fighting the global market for – or in illegal antiquities.

They will, of course, hold a bilateral meeting after the signing ceremony. Look, no surprise what they’ll discuss. They’ll likely discuss regional issues. We obviously have strong interest in Egypt’s views on regional issues – whether it’s Daesh, whether it’s Libya, whether it’s Syria. We’ll also, of course, want to talk to them about the domestic situation in Egypt and the pursuit of the Egyptian people for a stable, democratic, and prosperous country.

It goes without saying that we want to see Egypt succeed and become a successful, prosperous, and stable country. It’s important for the region. It’s important for the United States.

QUESTION: Did you confirm that Egypt sent any troops to Syria?

MR TONER: Did we confirm that – I’m sorry, did --

QUESTION: There were reports that Egypt may have sent troops, army to Syria.

MR TONER: No, I’ve not been able to – I don’t have any confirmation of those reports.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) 1517 – I assume that cultural products that are less than 500 years old are not antiquities, since that’s exactly 500 years.

MR TONER: I don’t know. It’s somewhere around the Ottoman Empire. I’m not sure if that has anything to do with it, but --

QUESTION: I don’t think it was connected to Luther’s 95 Theses --

MR TONER: (Laughter.) That’s right.

QUESTION: -- which were the same year.

MR TONER: I can assure you I asked the same question when I read it before. I’m not sure. That sounds as – plausible.

Please, Michael.

QUESTION: Yeah. Now that you said – you talk about Ottoman Empire --

MR TONER: Yeah, there we go.

QUESTION: -- Mark, as you know, Mr. Erdogan is – lately his tone is very aggressive and nationalistic. Now he’s saying that he wants a piece of Greece, of Iraq, and some other countries. He spoke of the borders of his heart. How do the America Government sees this nationalistic rhetoric by the president of Turkey?

MR TONER: Even though it’s – well, look, I’m not going to attempt to --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MR TONER: No, I understand. These are – this is the president of Turkey speaking, but I’m not going to attempt to explain or parse out his comments. I’d refer you to the Turkish Government for an explanation of their president’s comments. What I will say is that as a matter of principle, the United States strongly supports the sovereignty of both Turkey and Greece. I’ll leave it there.

QUESTION: I have some questions on Cyprus if you --

MR TONER: Of course.

QUESTION: As you know, the talks on Cyprus in Switzerland collapsed and the president of Turkey is responsible for this unfortunate development. What is your position on this, and what you are doing to revive the talks?

MR TONER: Well, I don’t know – your first question – you referred to it as collapsed. I don’t know if we’d characterize the situation quite that way. I mean, UN Special Adviser Eide spoke yesterday about the recess in Mont Pelerin. He called it a setback, but he also said he doesn’t see any unbridgeable issues. So of course we’re aware that these UN-backed talks did go into recess last week. I think the leaders returned to Cyprus to reflect on next steps and the way forward. We on our part continue to support the UN-led and facilitated process under UN Special Adviser Espen Eide.

More generally, we’ve been encouraged by the progress that Cypriot leaders have made this year, and our focus remains on supporting efforts by the parties to reach a comprehensive settlement to reunify Cyprus as a bizonal, bicommunal federation. We can get there. We believe that, as I said, there has been progress made. We understand that there’s – the talks are recessed now. I’m not necessarily going to commit or project about possible next steps. That’s really for the parties to decide. We certainly would encourage these talks to go through under the auspices of the UN.

Please.

QUESTION: There are reports today that Secretary Kerry is going in Nicosia on December 8th and 9th. Also there are reports that another official from the State Department is in Cyprus. Can you confirm any of this?

MR TONER: With regard to possible travel by the Secretary of State, I can’t confirm that. I don’t have anything to announce in that regard. I don’t know who – what other official you’re referring to.

QUESTION: I heard that another official is there.

MR TONER: Yeah.

QUESTION: Mr. Cohen, maybe.

MR TONER: I can check on that. I just don’t know.

QUESTION: Can you check on this?

MR TONER: Yep.

QUESTION: Thank you.

MR TONER: Please. Hey. Go ahead.

QUESTION: This morning, the UN Security Council passed additional sanctions on the DPRK.

MR TONER: Sure.

QUESTION: I know Ambassador Power addressed this a little bit earlier, but do you have any reaction or comments from this podium?

MR TONER: Well, thank you. She did, and did so, obviously, very articulately and forcefully. You’re talking about the passage of 2321. It was unanimously adopted by the Security Council. It shows that the Security Council is very united in imposing stronger sanctions on North Korea’s international trade, financial transactions, and weapons-related programs. This is in response to North Korea’s pattern that we’ve seen in the past – more than past months, but certainly increasing over the past months – its behavior that jeopardizes the security of the region and certainly the security of the Korean peninsula. I’d just say significantly, these sanctions go beyond UN Security Council Resolution 2270, which was already stronger than past sanctions regimes, by targeting North Korea’s hard currency revenues. I can get into the specifics, but this resolution imposes hard, binding cap that will cut North Korea’s coal exports by more than 60 percent. And also these sanctions will ban export by North Korea of monuments and non-ferrous metals, rather: copper, nickel, silver and zinc. And this is significant because both of these exports have provided tens of millions of dollars to the regime annually.

What else? Just finally I would just say that obviously none of these sanctions are directed and nor do we seek to punish the people of North Korea who indeed are long-suffering under the current regime. To the contrary, these sanctions are very much targeted at the ruling elite who are responsible for many of these illicit programs. And finally, this is just another attempt to convey to North Korea, to the regime our seriousness and our concern – talking about the international community here, not just the United States – that its reckless pursuit of nuclear weapons is in violation of multiple Security Council resolutions and it jeopardizes its international status.

QUESTION: And then also do you – could you outline any additional unilateral sanctions that the U.S. may be considering, and in particular whether the U.S. is considering any actions to target DPRK nationals that are working overseas?

MR TONER: I don’t have anything to announce in that regard. I do know that as part of – again, not – these are not U.S. sanctions, but as part of this sanctions – that one aspect of them was to – for lack of a better word since I can’t find the wording in front of me – but to minimize their diplomatic status overseas – or activity, I guess, is how I would phrase that. But I can’t speak to any unilateral steps that we may or may not take in the coming days and weeks.

QUESTION: Did the Chinese agree these sanctions? China, did they --

MR TONER: Did China agree? Well, I’d refer you to China to speak on their behalf, but my understanding is yes, they did agree.

QUESTION: I have another one.

MR TONER: Of course, go ahead.

QUESTION: North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has sent a nine pages letter to Trump demanding end to hostile nuclear threat. Do you have anything --

MR TONER: Demanding?

QUESTION: Demanding nuclear – hostile nuclear threat.

MR TONER: I’m not aware of the letter. I’d have to refer you to the President-elect Trump and his team to confirm receipt of that letter. I’m certainly not going to speak on his behalf or on his team’s behalf until January 20th. President Obama is the acting President, obviously. But I would say that concern, generally speaking, over North Korea’s behavior is not specific even to the United States or one administration in the U.S., but rather it’s a strong international condemnation.

Is that it? Thanks, guys.

(The briefing was concluded at 2:16 p.m.)

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